PurposeAdopting the dynamic capability perspective, this study aims at exploring which problem-solving capabilities result in fundamental solutions with a potentially low likelihood for problems to recur. This can also shed light on why, despite many attempts, process improvement programs often fail to produce such long-term solutions.Design/methodology/approachA case study is carried out to inductively describe and classify problem-solving in companies and to indicate why problem-solving efforts are typically bounded to short-term solutions. The empirical findings are triangulated with findings from the extant literature.FindingsFirst, the authors propose three problem-solving modes with different characteristics and potential impacts on operational performance: intuitive problem-solving, semi-structured problem-solving and systematic problem-solving. Second, by emphasizing dynamic capabilities' micro-foundations and with the focus on learning mechanisms, the authors show that, among these modes, only systematic problem-solving can serve as a dynamic capability with fundamental solutions. Third, based on insights from the case study, the authors address behavioral and organizational impediments that curb dynamic capabilities and limit systematic problem-solving adoption.Originality/valueThis study is an empirically informed attempt to understand systematic problem-solving as a dynamic capability. The authors uncover the micro-foundations and the learning mechanisms through which systematic problem-solving becomes a dynamic capability. By highlighting problem-solving orientation as a hardly investigated dimension of improvement programs, the authors show that a mixture of a static problem-solving approach and a set of impediments at both individual and organizational levels is the major reason of failures of improvement programs over time.
Appraisal of the Fischer-DiPasquale-Wheaton (FDW) real estate model and development of an integrated property and asset market model
