Understanding the relational dynamic capability-building process

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Donada ◽  
Gwenaelle Nogatchewsky ◽  
Anne Pezet
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang M Lee ◽  
Jin Sung Rha

Purpose – Developing ambidexterity as a dynamic capability is important for firms to sustain their competitive advantage. Moreover, this capability allows firms to build the resiliency to mitigate enterprise risks. The purpose of this paper is to apply two main theoretical frames from the strategy literature, dynamic capabilities, and organizational ambidexterity, to supply chain management (SCM) to examine mitigation strategies for supply chain (SC) disruptions. The authors empirically investigated how the firm’s SC ambidexterity is developed through a dynamic capability-building process and how this, in turn, can mitigate the negative impact of SC disruptions and improve business performance. Design/methodology/approach – This study conducted a field survey to answer the research questions as there exists no archival database with detailed information on ambidextrous SC strategies and dynamic capability. A total of 316 usable responses were received from managers working in the SC area. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were run on SPSS (version 16.0) and AMOS (version 18.0) to test the hypotheses to answer research questions. Findings – Overall, the results of the study confirmed that a dynamic SC capability-building process is an antecedent of SC ambidexterity, and that SC ambidexterity is important to firms as it mitigate the negative impact of SC disruptions and enhance business performance. To take advantage of an ambidextrous SC, through minimizing the negative impact of SC disruptions and maximizing firm performance, firms should continually search for creative ways to satisfy new market needs and adapt to the fast changing business environment. Originality/value – This study applied a dynamic capability-building process and ambidexterity to SCM. From the resilient SC perspective, the study found that the ability to effectively utilize existing resources and create novel strategies for problem solving plays a critical role in addressing SC disruptions.


2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marius Ungerer ◽  
Koos Uys

One of the basic assumptions associated with the theoretical model as described in this article is that an organization (a system) can acquire capabilities through intentional strategic and operational initiatives. This intentional capability-building process also implies that the organisation intends to use these capabilities in a constructive way to increase competitive advantage for the firm. Opsomming Een van die basiese aannames wat geassosieer word met die teoretiese model wat in hierdie artikel beskryf word, is dat ’n organisasie (’n stelsel) vermoëns deur doelgerigte strategiese en operasionele inisiatiewe kan bekom. Hierdie voorgenome vermoë-skeppingsproses, veronderstel ook dat die onderneming daarop ingestel is om hierdie vermoëns op ’n konstruktiewe wyse te benut om die mededingende voordeel van die organisasie te verhoog.


1997 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Wang

A considerable number of studies have been assembled over the last decade on the management of the R&D/marketing interface in product innovation. Most of these studies focus on the R&D/marketing interface as a self-contained unit of analysis, offering little explanation of the interface's contribution to a firm's competence building in ways essential to innovation success. This paper is based upon research that demonstrates that the importance of the R&D/marketing interface lies in its dynamic capability in influencing the direction of product development projects towards enhancing existing, or building new, competencies. The case study results show that the shared tasks performed by R&D and marketing departments are concentrated in three areas, i.e. corporate conceptual development (CCD), product conceptual development (PCD) and project implementation (Ip). The results reveal that the performance of the cross-functional team in general, and the R&D/marketing interface in particular, during a project's implementation, is heavily dependent on earlier activities in the areas of CCD and PCD. The former usually involves a sustained period of company-wide strategic preparation, which may or may not be directly targetted at a specific project, whilst the latter refers to previous co-operative experience at the project level. The evidence shows that, even when top management attempts to build an instant platform (e.g. by means of heavyweight project management), in the absence of such earlier activities, the effectiveness of this kind of platform has been far from satisfactory, thus pinpointing the vital importance of learning-before-doing in the innovation process.


2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marius Ungerer ◽  
Koos Uys

One of the basic assumptions associated with the theoretical model as described in this article is that an organisation (a system) can acquire capabilities through intentional strategic and operational initiatives. This intentional capability-building process also implies that the organisation intends to use these capabilities in a constructive way to increase competitive advantage for the firm. Opsomming Een van die basiese aannames wat geassosieer word met die teoretiese model wat in hierdie artikel beskryf word, is dat ’n organisasie (’n stelsel) vermoëns deur doelgerigte strategiese en operasionele inisiatiewe kan bekom. Hierdie voorgenome vermoë-skeppingsproses, veronderstel ook dat die onderneming daarop ingestel is om hierdie vermoëns op ’n konstruktiewe wyse te benut om die mededingende voordeel van die organisasie te verhoog.


2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. J. Lecler ◽  
J. Kinghorn

This article focuses on how managers sense and seize opportunities for learning and developing dynamic capabilities in organisations. An approach of building process theory from cases traces learning events in the technological innovationapproaches of three securities custodians facing an increasingly dynamic market. The article extends and elaborates the dynamic capability learning framework (Lecler, 2013) which proposes that managers recognise learning opportunitiesthrough two types of learning, expert and entrepreneurial, with variants for technological and organisational problem solving. The concept of entrepreneurial learning is further elaborated to help explain differences in the learning patternsfound. Distinctive characteristics of the two types of learning are proposed pertaining to opportunity recognition and realisation, and the problem solving strategy. The framework helps to analyse data in terms of four learning patterns: expert honing and aligning, and entrepreneurial shaping and configuring. Further, entrepreneurial learning is suggested to facilitate dynamic capability development in a highly dynamic environment.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 13437
Author(s):  
Sihem Ben Mahmoud-Jouini ◽  
Julie SAHAKIAN

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document