Understanding dynamic capabilities

Abstract

Defining ordinary or "zero-level" capabilities as those that permit a firm to "make a living" in the short term, one can define dynamic capabilities as those that operate to extend, modify or create ordinary capabilities. Logically, one can then proceed to elaborate a hierarchy of higher-order capabilities (Collis 1994). However, it is argued here that the strategic substance of capabilities involves patterning of activity, and that costly investments are typically required to create and sustain such patterning-for example, in product development. Firms can accomplish change without reliance on dynamic capability, by means here termed "ad hoc problem solving. " Whether higher order capabilities are created or not depends on the costs and benefits of the investments relative to ad hoc problem solving, and so does the "level of the game" at which strategic competition effectively occurs.

Benchmarking for Routines and Organizational Knowledge

“…Whereas existing studies scrutinize the general concepts of routines and organizational knowledge, there is still a need of operationalizing the two. 1 Foremost, we answer the call for methodological and empirical contributions that account for the endogenous components of across-firms heterogeneous routines (Winter 2003;Abell et al 2008;Felin and Foss 2011;Argyres et al 2012;Felin et al 2012;Felin 2012). We do so by adopting a best practice benchmarking approach to firm activity in dynamic environments.…”

“…Related and growing approaches considered the dynamic nature of resources and routines (Teece et al 1997;Eisenhardt and Martin 2000;Zollo and Winter 2002;Winter 2003;Zott 2003;Teece 2007;Abell et al 2008;Argyres et al 2012). Some existing debates critically assess the dynamic aspect of the frameworks and propose alternatives (e.g.…”

“…know-how), both of which, when enhanced, strengthen competitive advantages (Teece et al 1997;Teece 2007). Indeed, organizational knowledge is embedded in routines and changes in these are indicative that learning occurred (Argote and MironSpektor 2011), especially when assuming that routines are heterogeneous across firms (Teece et al 1997;Winter 2003;Abell et al 2008;Argyres et al 2012;Felin et al 2012).…”

“…First, we contribute to the operationalization of management theoretical frameworks based on firm resources and routines. Foremost, our research design and methods integrate the endogenous components of across-firms heterogeneous routines that are fundamental for performance (Winter 2003;Abell et al 2008; 3 See Foss and Stieglitz (2011) for a critical review of the RBV. One can refer to Argyres et al (2012) for the relationship between the routines literature and organizational economics, with special focus on heterogeneity.…”

Exploring the Value of Dynamic Capabilities Theory: A synthesis of the theoretical building blocks

“…ordinary capabilities) in (2) dinamične zmožnosti. Svoj pogled so gradili na vidiku razvrščanja zmožnosti, ki ga je predstavil Winter (2003). (1) Bistvene ali navadne zmožnosti so enako kot Winter in tudi Danneels opredelili kot sposobnosti, ki nam omogočajo ponuditi želeni proizvod ali storitev.…”