The Architecture of Dynamic Capability Research Identifying the Building Blocks of a Configurational Approach

Abstract

The dynamic capability view (DCV) of the firm has become one of the leading frameworks aimed at identifying drivers of long-term firm survival and growth. Yet, despite considerable academic interest, there are many questions about what dynamic capabilities (DCs) are, how they relate to other organizational operations, and how they relate to firm performance. In this article, we provide a unique and comprehensive examination of the DCV literature that goes beyond past reviews by combining text-based analysis with surveys of, and interviews with, researchers in the field. With this approach, we are able to examine the evolution of the DCV in written literature and identify missing research themes. Based on this review, we argue that future research will benefit from integrating the DCV with configuration theory and the recent micro foundational thinking. We encapsulate this discussion via an architectural model of the DCV (entitled “House of Dynamic Capabilities”) that combines micro foundations underlying DCs at the varying levels of analysis (individual, business unit, and organizational) while also accounting for important enablers of DCs and firm strategic orientation. We also show how this logic requires a completely different set of methodological approaches to those currently in use.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Michael Leiblein, Patrick Reinmoeller, Margaret Peteraf, and Siggi Gudergan, and also numerous participants at university and conference seminars for their very useful ideas and insights on previous drafts of this manuscript and the overall research design. We further acknowledge the very helpful comments by the AOM Annals editorial team, Laurie Weingart, Sim Sitkin, and Laura Cardinal, plus the two anonymous reviewers. We also thank the roundtable participants at the 2013 Academy of Management and Strategic Management Society conferences, as well as all the survey respondents. Finally, we express our profound appreciation to Krithika Randhawa who provided invaluable help with the data collection and analysis.

ORCID

Ralf Wilden http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1088-5792

Timothy M. Devinney http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4867-1861

Notes

1. Each of the articles included in their final analysis has received more than the average number of citations within their panel (20 citations).

2. The selected articles used in this analysis were drawn from the following journals: Strategic Management Journal (42 articles), Academy of Management Review (6), Academy of Management Journal (5), Organization Science (14), Organization Studies (3), Administrative Science Quarterly (0), Industrial and Corporate Change (17), British Journal of Management (19), Journal of Management (6), Journal of Management Studies (13), Management Science (2), and Strategic Organization (6). Industrial and Corporate Change and the British Journal of Management were selected due to having published special issues on DCs; the remaining journals were selected based on their high impact factor scores.

3. The author analysis faces one limitation. Leximancer can only pick up the actual mentioned authors. Hence when only the first author is mentioned (e.g. Teece et al., 1997) the co-authors will be “discounted” and not included the analysis.

4. Note that this analysis does not just count the frequency with which the authors appear in articles but examines which authors are likely to be mentioned in conjunction with which other authors.

5. We excluded a detailed discussion of team’s as its own level of analysis in our framework. Future research may also want to discuss this level, integrating upper echelon theory and discuss top management team decision-making in the context of DCs (see Buyl et al., 2011; Hambrick & Mason, 1984).