Building a Conceptual Model of Routines, Capabilities, and Absorptive Capacity Interplay

Researchers have often used constructs such as routines, operational capability, dynamic capability, absorptive capacity, etc., to explain various organizational phenomena, especially a competitive advantage of firms. As a consequence of their frequent use in different contexts, these constructs have become extremely broad and blurred, thus making a void in strategic management literature. In this paper we attempt to bring a sense of holistic perspective on these constructs by briefly reviewing the current state of the research and presenting a conceptual model that provides an explanation for the causal relationships between them. The final section of the paper sheds some light on this topic from the econophysics perspective. Authors hope that findings in this paper may serve as a foundation for other research endeavours related to the topic of how firms achieve competitive advantage and thrive in their environments.

[1]  L. Kim.  The Dynamics of Samsung's Technological Learning in Semiconductors , 1997 .

[2]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[3]  Clark G. Gilbert,et al.  Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist? , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Georg Schreyögg,et al.  How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization , 2007 .

[5]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[6]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[7]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Strategic assets and organizational rent , 1993 .

[8]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[9]  Georg Schreyögg,et al.  Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[10]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories , 1989 .

[11]  Balaji R. Koka,et al.  The Reification of Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the Construct , 2006 .

[12]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments , 1994 .

[13]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[14]  Linsu Kim,et al.  Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea's Technological Learning , 1997 .

[15]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[16]  J. Ruiz Moreno.  [Organizational learning]. , 2001, Revista de enfermeria.

[17]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues , 1996 .

[18]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[19]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Co-evolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities , 1999 .

[20]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[21]  Sidney G. Winter,et al.  The satisficing principle in capability learning , 2000 .

[22]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[23]  B. Pentland,et al.  Organizational Routines as Grammars of Action , 1994 .

[24]  D. Newbery,et al.  Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly , 1982 .

[25]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[26]  Markus C. Becker.  Organizational routines: a review of the literature , 2004 .

[27]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[28]  M. Feldman,et al.  Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change , 2003 .

[29]  C. Gilbert.  Unbundling the Structure of Inertia: Resource Versus Routine Rigidity , 2005 .

[30]  Nicholas Argyres.  EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE OF FIRM CAPABILITIES IN VERTICAL INTEGRATION DECISIONS , 1996 .

[31]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: strategy for the (n)ever-changing world , 2011 .

[32]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[33]  Martha S. Feldman,et al.  Organizational Routines as a Unit of Analysis , 2005 .

[34]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[36]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[37]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The age of temporary advantage , 2010 .

[38]  Enno Siemsen,et al.  Decay, Shock, and Renewal: Operational Routines and Process Entropy in the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[39]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change , 2000 .

[40]  Qing Cao,et al.  Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[41]  Timothy W. Ruefli,et al.  Industry, corporate, and segment effects and business performance: a non‐parametric approach , 2003 .

[42]  Aaron C. T. Smith,et al.  The Role of Dualities in Arbitrating Continuity and Change in Forms of Organizing , 2008 .

[43]  Ivan Stefanović,et al.  The response to the changing landscape of tomorrow: Reconfigurable organizations , 2011 .

[44]  Michael L. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit , 2011 .

[45]  P. Herrmann,et al.  Evolution of Strategic Management: The Need for New Dominant Designs , 2005 .

[46]  Seemantini Madhukar Pathak,et al.  A THEMATIC ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY RESEARCH , 2002 .