The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/dynamic-capabilities-and-strategic-management-4iyi34iyh6.pdf

Dynamic capabilities and strategic management

Information technology (IT) acceptance research has yielded many competing models, each with different sets of acceptance determinants. In this paper, we (1) review user acceptance literature and discuss eight prominent models, (2) empirically compare the eight models and their extensions, (3) formulate a unified model that integrates elements across the eight models, and (4) empirically validate the unified model. The eight models reviewed are the theory of reasoned action, the technology acceptance model, the motivational model, the theory of planned behavior, a model combining the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior, the model of PC utilization, the innovation diffusion theory, and the social cognitive theory. Using data from four organizations over a six-month period with three points of measurement, the eight models explained between 17 percent and 53 percent of the variance in user intentions to use information technology. Next, a unified model, called the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), was formulated, with four core determinants of intention and usage, and up to four moderators of key relationships. UTAUT was then tested using the original data and found to outperform the eight individual models (adjusted R2 of 69 percent). UTAUT was then confirmed with data from two new organizations with similar results (adjusted R2 of 70 percent). UTAUT thus provides a useful tool for managers needing to assess the likelihood of success for new technology introductions and helps them understand the drivers of acceptance in order to proactively design interventions (including training, marketing, etc.) targeted at populations of users that may be less inclined to adopt and use new systems. The paper also makes several recommendations for future research including developing a deeper understanding of the dynamic influences studied here, refining measurement of the core constructs used in UTAUT, and understanding the organizational outcomes associated with new technology use.

User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view

The present research develops and tests a theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that explains perceived usefulness and usage intentions in terms of social influence and cognitive instrumental processes. The extended model, referred to as TAM2, was tested using longitudinal data collected regarding four different systems at four organizations ( N = 156), two involving voluntary usage and two involving mandatory usage. Model constructs were measured at three points in time at each organization: preimplementation, one month postimplementation, and three months postimplementation. The extended model was strongly supported for all four organizations at all three points of measurement, accounting for 40%--60% of the variance in usefulness perceptions and 34%--52% of the variance in usage intentions. Both social influence processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image) and cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use) significantly influenced user acceptance. These findings advance theory and contribute to the foundation for future research aimed at improving our understanding of user adoption behavior.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2634758.pdf

A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies

Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259373.pdf

Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage

This article discusses the research strategy of theory building from cases, particularly multiple cases. Such a strategy involves using one or more cases to create theoretical constructs, propositions, and/or midrange theory from case-based, empirical evidence. Replication logic means that each case serves as a distinct experiment that stands on its own merits as an analytic unit. The frequent use of case studies as a research strategy has given rise to some challenges that can be mitigated by the use of very precise wording and thoughtful research design.

Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges

This paper examines the nature of the core capabilities of a firm, focusing in particular on their interaction with new product and process development projects. Two new concepts about core capabilities are explored here. First, while core capabilities are traditionally treated as clusters of distinct technical systems, skills, and managerial systems, these dimensions of capabilities are deeply rooted in values, which constitute an often overlooked but critical fourth dimension. Second, traditional core capabilities have a down side that inhibits innovation, here called core rigidities. Managers of new product and process development projects thus face a paradox: how to take advantage of core capabilities without being hampered by their dysfunctional flip side. Such projects play an important role in emerging strategies by highlighting the need for change and leading the way. Twenty case studies of new product and process development projects in five firms provide illustrative data.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2486355.pdf

Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development

From the Publisher:
Why are some companies better at innovation than others? Drawing on the candid reflections of managers at leading technology-based companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Chaparral Steel, Microsoft, and Motorola, Wellsprings of Knowledge shows that the successful innovators are companies that build and manage knowledge effectively. The book reveals lessons for creating, nurturing, and growing the experience and accumulated knowledge of the organization into renewable assets and competitive advantage. Leonard-Barton illustrates the dimensions of the core capabilities along which all organizations must innovate: skills and knowledge base, physical systems, managerial systems, and values and norms of behavior. However, these capabilities can function as "core rigidities" if not constantly assessed. Managers must design capabilities as evolving, organic reservoirs. Wellsprings of Knowledge will help managers understand the long-term, systemic, and people-based nature of technological advantage and inspire them to think constantly about the potential knowledge-building import of every technology-related decision they make.

Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation

Since firms are knowledge institutions, or well-springs of knowledge, they compete on the basis of creating and using knowledge; managing a firm's knowledge assets is as important as managing its finances. A firm's expertise is acquired by employees and embodied in machines, software, and institutional procedures. Management of its core or strategic capabilities determines a firm's competitiveness and survival. Through decision-making and action, core technological capabilities can be built and changed. The author proposes to (1) help managers think about the knowledge-building consequences of their technology-related decisions and (2) provide academics materials usable in training managers to think about knowledge building. All aspects of product or process development must be viewed in terms of knowledge management and growth. Knowledge cannot be managed the same as tangible assets; to manage knowledge assets, one must understand them. Successful adaptation is an incremental re-direction of skills and knowledge. A set of four core technological competencies bestows competitive advantage on firms; these are the firm's skill and knowledge bases, physical technical systems, managerial systems, and values and norms that create a firm's special advantage. These may reside at any line-of-business level. Core capabilities must be managed to foster, not inhibit flow of critical knowledge. There is a dilemma: core capabilities are also core rigidities when carried to an extreme or when the competitive environment changes. Limited problem solving, inability to innovate, limited experimentation, and screening out new knowledge can undermine the development of competencies. Four key activities create and sustain flows of knowledge and direct them into core capabilities: (1) Integrated, shared creative problem solving across cognitive and functional barriers - shared problem solving achieves new level of creativity when managed for "creative abrasion." (2) Implementation and integration of new internally generated methodologies and technical processes and tools. These can move beyond merely increasing efficiency when managed for learning. (3) Formal and informal experimentation. Experimental activities create new core competencies that move companies purposefully forward and are guards against rigidity. (4) Importing and absorbing technological knowledge expertise from outside the firm. Technology alliances, for example, develop outwise wellsprings of knowledge (identify, access, use, and manage knowledge from external sources). Well managed, these enable companies to tap knowledge wellsprings consistently and continuously. Many dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors within firms inhibit these activities. These activities are oriented to present, internal, future, and external domains, and involve managers at all company levels and all functions. Specific managerial behaviors that build (or undermine) capabilities are identified. Managers must design an environment that encourages enactments of these four activities to create an organization that learns. Thereby, organizations and managers can create an atmosphere for continuous renewal; application to commercial ends is as important as managing it internally. The growth and nurturing of core capabilities (expressed in successful product development) requires learning from the market (understanding user needs), or feeding market information into new-product development. Identifying new product opportunities depends on empathic design, actual observed customer behavior, and technological capabilities. Technology transfer can also be understood as transferring technological capabilities to a new site, which is examined at four levels (assembly or turnkey, adaptation and localization, system, redesign, product design). Transfer of production development capability is illustrated with the cas

This paper describes a case study methodology that combines a real-time longitudinal three-year study with nine retrospective case studies about the same phenomenon. These two kinds of case studies offer opportunities for complementary and synergistic data gathering and analysis. That is, specific strengths in each method compensate for some particular weakness in the other. For instance, the retrospective studies offer the opportunity to identify patterns indicative of dynamic processes and the longitudinal study provides a close-up view of those patterns as they evolve over time. The combination of the two types of case studies also enhances three kinds of validity: construct, internal and external. The author also discusses problems with and shortcomings of this dual methodology and suggests the circumstances for which the methodology is especially appropriate.

Dorothy Leonard-Barton

Papers

Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development

Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation

Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation

A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic Use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites

Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization