Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda
TL;DR: In this paper, a definition of dynamic capabilities, separating them from substantive capabilities as well as from their antecedents and consequences, is proposed, and a set of propositions that outline how substantive capabilities and dynamic capabilities are related to one another, how this relationship is moderated by organizational knowledge and skills, and how organizational age affects the speed of utilization of dynamic capability and the learning mode used in organizational change.
Abstract: The emergent literature on dynamic capabilities and their role in value creation is riddled with inconsistencies, overlapping definitions, and outright contradictions. Yet, the theoretical and practical importance of developing and applying dynamic capabilities to sustain a firm's competitive advantage in complex and volatile external environments has catapulted this issue to the forefront of the research agendas of many scholars. In this paper, we offer a definition of dynamic capabilities, separating them from substantive capabilities as well as from their antecedents and consequences. We also present a set of propositions that outline (1) how substantive capabilities and dynamic capabilities are related to one another, (2) how this relationship is moderated by organizational knowledge and skills, (3) how organizational age affects the speed of utilization of dynamic capabilities and the learning mode used in organizational change, and (4) how organizational knowledge and market dynamism affect the likely value of dynamic capabilities. Our discussion and model help to delineate key differences in the dynamic capabilities that new ventures and established companies have, revealing a key source of strategic heterogeneity between these firms.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities view, by addressing the question of how firms can cope with changing environments, has gained increasing attention in the management literature in recent years, not only in the concept's original domain (strategic management) but also in many other areas within business administration as mentioned in this paper.
1,477 citations
TL;DR: This synthesis first highlights, that dynamic capabilities are shaped by enabling and inhibiting variables within and outside the firm, including the perceptions and motivations of managers; secondly, it identifies processes that create dynamic capabilities; and thirdly, it explains thatynamic capabilities do not automatically lead to performance improvements.
Abstract: The dynamic capability perspective extends the resource-based view argument by addressing how valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and imperfectly substitutable resources can be created and how the current stock of valuable resources can be refreshed in changing environments. The concept of dynamic capabilities emerged in the 1990s, and the field has advanced considerably since. This paper presents a review as well as a synthesis of the extant literature. This synthesis first highlights, that dynamic capabilities are shaped by enabling and inhibiting variables within and outside the firm, including the perceptions and motivations of managers; secondly, it identifies processes that create dynamic capabilities; and thirdly, it explains that dynamic capabilities do not automatically lead to performance improvements. Finally, the paper addresses some areas of confusion and contradiction that hamper the development of the literature.
1,357 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors merge knowledge management, absorptive capacity, and dynamic capabilities to arrive at an integrative perspective, which considers knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation inside and outside a firm's boundaries.
Abstract: We merge research into knowledge management, absorptive capacity, and dynamic capabilities to arrive at an integrative perspective, which considers knowledge exploration, retention, and exploitation inside and outside a firm's boundaries. By complementing the concept of absorptive capacity, we advance towards a capability-based framework for open innovation processes. We identify the following six ‘knowledge capacities’ as a firm's critical capabilities of managing internal and external knowledge in open innovation processes: inventive, absorptive, transformative, connective, innovative, and desorptive capacity. ‘Knowledge management capacity’ is a dynamic capability, which reconfigures and realigns the knowledge capacities. It refers to a firm's ability to successfully manage its knowledge base over time. The concept may be regarded as a framework for open innovation, as a complement to absorptive capacity, and as a move towards understanding dynamic capabilities for managing knowledge. On this basis, it contributes to explaining interfirm heterogeneity in knowledge and alliance strategies, organizational boundaries, and innovation performance.
931 citations
TL;DR: The Special Issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice on the topic of Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) as mentioned in this paper was the first special issue dedicated to entrepreneurship theory and practice.
Abstract: This article introduces the Special Issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice on the topic of Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO). In addition to overviewing the preparation and structure of the S...
858 citations
TL;DR: It is revealed that digital transformation is an ongoing process of using new digital technologies in everyday organizational life, which recognizes agility as the core mechanism for the strategic renewal of an organization's business model, collaborative approach, and eventually the culture.
760 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities.
Abstract: In this paper, we argue that the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities. We label this capability a firm's absorptive capacity and suggest that it is largely a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge. The discussion focuses first on the cognitive basis for an individual's absorptive capacity including, in particular, prior related knowledge and diversity of background. We then characterize the factors that influence absorptive capacity at the organizational level, how an organization's absorptive capacity differs from that of its individual members, and the role of diversity of expertise within an organization. We argue that the development of absorptive capacity, and, in turn, innovative performance are history- or path-dependent and argue how lack of investment in an area of expertise early on may foreclose the future development of a technical capability in that area. We formulate a model of firm investment in research and development (R&D), in which R&D contributes to a firm's absorptive capacity, and test predictions relating a firm's investment in R&D to the knowledge underlying technical change within an industry. Discussion focuses on the implications of absorptive capacity for the analysis of other related innovative activities, including basic research, the adoption and diffusion of innovations, and decisions to participate in cooperative R&D ventures. **
31,623 citations
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities framework as mentioned in this paper analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change, and suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technology change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm.
Abstract: 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.
27,902 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed an evolutionary theory of the capabilities and behavior of business firms operating in a market environment, including both general discussion and the manipulation of specific simulation models consistent with that theory.
Abstract: This study develops an evolutionary theory of the capabilities and behavior of business firms operating in a market environment. It includes both general discussion and the manipulation of specific simulation models consistent with that theory. The analysis outlines the differences between an evolutionary theory of organizational and industrial change and a neoclassical microeconomic theory. The antecedents to the former are studies by economists like Schumpeter (1934) and Alchian (1950). It is contrasted with the orthodox theory in the following aspects: while the evolutionary theory views firms as motivated by profit, their actions are not assumed to be profit maximizing, as in orthodox theory; the evolutionary theory stresses the tendency of most profitable firms to drive other firms out of business, but, in contrast to orthodox theory, does not concentrate on the state of industry equilibrium; and evolutionary theory is related to behavioral theory: it views firms, at any given time, as having certain capabilities and decision rules, as well as engaging in various ‘search' operations, which determines their behavior; while orthodox theory views firm behavior as relying on the use of the usual calculus maximization techniques. The theory is then made operational by the use of simulation methods. These models use Markov processes and analyze selection equilibrium, responses to changing factor prices, economic growth with endogenous technical change, Schumpeterian competition, and Schumpeterian tradeoff between static Pareto-efficiency and innovation. The study's discussion of search behavior complicates the evolutionary theory. With search, the decision making process in a firm relies as much on past experience as on innovative alternatives to past behavior. This view combines Darwinian and Lamarkian views on evolution; firms are seen as both passive with regard to their environment, and actively seeking alternatives that affect their environment. The simulation techniques used to model Schumpeterian competition reveal that there are usually winners and losers in industries, and that the high productivity and profitability of winners confer advantages that make further success more likely, while decline breeds further decline. This process creates a tendency for concentration to develop even in an industry initially composed of many equal-sized firms. However, the experiments conducted reveal that the growth of concentration is not inevitable; for example, it tends to be smaller when firms focus their searches on imitating rather than innovating. At the same time, industries with rapid technological change tend to grow more concentrated than those with slower progress. The abstract model of Schumpeterian competition presented in the study also allows to see more clearly the public policy issues concerning the relationship between technical progress and market structure. The analysis addresses the pervasive question of whether industry concentration, with its associated monopoly profits and reduced social welfare, is a necessary cost if societies are to obtain the benefits of technological innovation. (AT)
22,566 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1942
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a history of the first half of the 20th century, from 1875 to 1914, of the First World War and the Second World War.
Abstract: Introduction. Part I: The Marxian Doctrine. Prologue. I. Marx the Prophet. II. Marx the Sociologist. III. Marx the Economist. IV Marx the Teacher. Part II: Can Capitalism Survive? Prologue. V. The Rate of Increase of Total Output. VI. Plausible Capitalism. VII. The Process of Creative Destruction. VIII. Monopolistics Practices. IX. Closed Season. X. The Vanishing of Investment Opportunity. XI. The Civilization of Capitalism. XII. Crumbling Walls. XIII. Growing Hostility. XIV. Decomposition. Part III: Can Socialism Work? XV. Clearing Decks. XVI. The Socialist Blueprint. XVII. Comparison of Blueprints. XVIII. The Human Element. XIX. Transition. Part IV: Socialism and Democracy. XX. The Setting of the Problem. XXI. The Classical Doctrine of Democracy. XXII. Another Theory of Democracy. XXIII. The Inference. Part V: A Historical Sketch of Socialist Parties. Prologue. XXIV. The Nonage. XXV. The Situation that Marx Faced. XXVI. From 1875 to 1914. XXVII. From the First to the Second World War. XXVIII. The Consequences of the Second World War. Preface to the First Edition, 1942. Preface to the Second Edition, 1946. Preface to the Third Edition, 1949. The March Into Socialism. Index.
16,667 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the relation between the exploration of new possibilities and the exploitation of old certainties in organizational learning and examine some complications in allocating resources between the two, particularly those introduced by the distribution of costs and benefits across time and space.
Abstract: This paper considers the relation between the exploration of new possibilities and the exploitation of old certainties in organizational learning. It examines some complications in allocating resources between the two, particularly those introduced by the distribution of costs and benefits across time and space, and the effects of ecological interaction. Two general situations involving the development and use of knowledge in organizations are modeled. The first is the case of mutual learning between members of an organization and an organizational code. The second is the case of learning and competitive advantage in competition for primacy. The paper develops an argument that adaptive processes, by refining exploitation more rapidly than exploration, are likely to become effective in the short run but self-destructive in the long run. The possibility that certain common organizational practices ameliorate that tendency is assessed.
16,377 citations