2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0925-5273(02)00244-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic capability view in terms of real options

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
49
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Dynamic capabilities differ from resources and ordinary capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;Winter, 2003). Critics of the Resource-Based View have promoted the DCM because of its neglect of environmental change (Aragon-Correa & Sharma, 2003;Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003) and due to the changing organizational knowledge base, resources, and learning-induced replication processes (Kylaheiko, Sandstrom, & Virkkunen, 2002). Applications of the DCM include several competitive heterogeneity models and empirical studies.…”
Section: Dynamic Capabilities Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dynamic capabilities differ from resources and ordinary capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;Winter, 2003). Critics of the Resource-Based View have promoted the DCM because of its neglect of environmental change (Aragon-Correa & Sharma, 2003;Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003) and due to the changing organizational knowledge base, resources, and learning-induced replication processes (Kylaheiko, Sandstrom, & Virkkunen, 2002). Applications of the DCM include several competitive heterogeneity models and empirical studies.…”
Section: Dynamic Capabilities Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To sum up, the firms must recognize and evaluate these competitive opportunities and also build operating capabilities in order to take advantage of opportunities opening up in markets (see also Foss et al, 2008). This bring us to the strategic (real) options thinking that we find the most suitable umbrella concept when analyzing proactive behavior of the firms under the circumstances where the window of opportunities is genuinely uncertain (more about the strategic options-based analysis in relation to the RBV and DCV, see Foss and Roemer, 2010;Kyläheiko et al, 2002).…”
Section: Towards Dynamic Strategic Option Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the exact valuation of strategic (real) options is hard or impossible due to often structural or sometimes even radical (not to be measured) nature of uncertainties and environment-related complexities (Kyläheiko et al, 2002), but still the strategic options approach is a useful strategic tool when simultaneously trying to control and minimize downside risks related to uncertainty and to seize the upside opportunities opened up by learning, innovating, and partnering. In order to avoid the downside risks the strategic investment project can, for example, be abandoned, delayed (a strategic deferral option), or the size of the investment can be decreased (a strategic scaling option).…”
Section: Towards Dynamic Strategic Option Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The asset selection component in managerial decisions is also where real option considerations come into play. The value of an asset is not just its current cash flow, but also its option value often based on waiting, i.e., on learning and decreasing uncertainty (Kyläheiko et al, 2002).…”
Section: The Creation Of New Knowledge and Capabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is often associated with strategic attempts to sustain competitive advantage during the conditions of rapid change (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;Ferdinand et al, 2004;Jantunen, 2005;Kyläheiko et al, 2002;Pö yhö nen/Kianto, 2004;Teece et al, 1997;Winter, 2003). More specifically, dynamic capabilities are considered as tools that manipulate resource configurations (Einsenhardt and Martin, 2000), the support to organizational renewal (Antonacopoulou, 2005), and the major source for creating new knowledge and capabilities needed in today's dynamic markets (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;Teece et al, 1997;Teece, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%