Vogel 2012

7/25/2019 Vogel 2012

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogel-2012 1/21

The Dynamic Capability View in StrategicManagement: A Bibliometric Review

Rick Vogel and Wolfgang H. Güttel1

Chair of Public Management & Public Policy, Zeppelin University, D-88045 Friedrichshafen, Germany, and 1Institute of Human Resource and Change Management, Johannes Kepler-University, A-4040 Linz, Austria

Corresponding author email: [email protected]

The dynamic capability view (DCV) is one of the most vibrant approaches to strategicmanagement. In this study, the extant literature published between 1994 and 2011 is

analysed, using bibliometric methods in order to explore the scope of this approach anddetect current research priorities. For this purpose, the method of bibliographic cou-pling is introduced in management research, which shifts the focus of analysis from

past traditions to current trends. Several clusters of thematically related research areextracted from bibliographic networks, which represent interconnected yet distinct

subfields of inquiry within the DCV. The core cluster of the current DCV, whichvisualizes this research field’s nascent but fragile identity, focuses on learning andchange capabilities and relates them to firm performance, thus merging aspects of

organization theory and strategic management. In addition, several peripheral clustersof research are identified, which reflect a parallel process of differentiation in theoverall field. Both trends, i.e. of integration and differentiation, attest to the emanci-

pation of the DCV as a distinct approach to strategic management. However, the DCVstill lacks consensual concepts that allow comparisons of empirical studies and advance

the theoretical understanding of dynamic capabilities. In the light of the above, someimplications of this analysis for further research are discussed.

Introduction

The dynamic capability view (DCV) has become one

of the most vibrant topics in the domain of strategic

management, and has even been referred to as ‘the

new touchstone firm-based performance-focused

theory’ (Arend and Bromiley 2009, p. 75). Since the

DCV first appeared in scientific literature (Teece

et al . 1990), several hundred research publications

have elaborated on this approach (Di Stefano et al .

2010). Another indication that the DCV is maturing

into an established perspective is the recent publica-tion of the first introductory textbooks (Helfat et al .

2007; Teece 2009). The most seminal papers on

dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000;

Helfat 1997; Teece et al . 1997; Zollo and Winter

2002) are among the highest cited in the broader

array of strategic management publications (Furrer

et al . 2008). In these articles, dynamic capability has

been introduced, for instance, as ‘the firm’s ability to

integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external

competences to address rapidly changing environ-

ments’ (Teece et al . 1997, p. 516) or as ‘the firm’s

processes that use resources – specifically the proc-

esses to integrate, reconfigure, gain and release

resources – to match or even to create market

change’ (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000, p. 1107). Con-

sidering that the responsiveness of a firm’s resource

stock to increasingly turbulent environments is asso-

ciated with competitive advantage, dynamic capa-

bilities are of inherent strategic relevance to a firm.However, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) and Zollo

and Winter (2002) emphasize that firms also need

dynamic capabilities in markets characterized by

lower rates of change, in order to keep pace with

competitive dynamics.

The fast-growing number of publications on

dynamic capabilities and the considerable theoretical

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. *, *–* (2012)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12000

© 2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA

02148, USA

7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


and methodological variety within this body of

literature make it difficult, if not impossible, to keep

track of how this research field evolves. Recent quali-

tative reviews and assessments of the extant literature

offer some useful orientation in this regard (Ambro-

sini and Bowman 2009; Arend and Bromiley 2009;

Barreto 2010; Easterby-Smith et al . 2009; Helfat and Peteraf 2009; Helfat and Winter 2011; Schreyögg

and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Wang and Ahmed 2007;

Zahra et al . 2006). These works trace the intellectual

origins of the DCV approach, provide syntheses of

definitions, discuss the constituents, enablers and

inhibitors of dynamic capabilities, summarize key

empirical findings and also identify shortcomings in

conceptual clarity and empirical applicability.

However, in terms of method, qualitative reviews

tend to reflect the idiosyncrasies of the reviewers,

who are deeply involved in the topic. Single-expert

reviews are indispensable for assessing the state of afield and launching discussions on its future devel-

opment; however, they tend to suffer from general

problems of subjectivity and hence are inherently

biased. An additional problem is that relevant publi-

cations proliferate at rates that increasingly exceed

the information-processing capacity of individual

researchers. This is reflected in the considerable dif-

ferences between the various views on how the DCV

is to be understood, how it might be applied and

how it might influence the development of strategic

management. For example, Arend and Bromiley

(2009) draw the conclusion that, because of its vagueor inconsistent theoretical foundations, the DCV

approach is at a disadvantage compared with other

approaches to strategic organization. They also criti-

cize the fact that the DCV approach underutilizes

organization theory in general and concepts of

organizational change, such as ‘absorptive capacity’,

‘organizational learning’ and ‘change management’,

in particular. In contrast, Helfat and Peteraf (2009)

respond by arguing that terminological and concep-

tual variety simply reflects the complexity of the

phenomenon, which requires multiple theoretical

views. In their view, the continuing exploration of

fundamental issues and the lack of empirical valida-

tion are features of any field of inquiry in the state of

adolescence.

In view of such fundamental disagreements with

regard to the scope, and even usefulness, of the DCV,

a structured quantitative approach to the extant litera-

ture can help (i) to explore the scope of the DCV in the

broader field of strategic management, (ii) to detect

current research schools and perspectives within the

DCV and (iii) to push the envelope by identifying

hitherto unaddressed issues and unconnected sub-

fields. Accomplishing these goals will substantiate

and complement qualitative literature reviews and

critiques of the DCV and help cross-validate their

findings and assessments. To provide an alternative to

qualitative reviews, we employ bibliometric methods,which involve the aggregation of large amounts of

bibliographic data (for a review, see Verbeek et al .

2002) and are therefore deemed to be objective. In the

course of our analysis, we introduce in manage-

ment research the method of bibliographic coupling

(Kessler 1963), which complements the widespread

co-citation technique (e.g. Di Stefano et al . 2010) by

shifting attention from traditions to trends in the sci-

entific literature. This method enhances bibliometric

applications of social network analysis, which have so

far been used predominately for visualization pur-

poses. Furthermore, we examine the thematic expan-sion of the DCV by analysing the diffusion process

over time, instead of merely taking a snapshot.

The results delineate the DCV in the current

literature. The bibliographic networks that we iden-

tify reveal several distinct yet interrelated subfields

of research that evolve dynamically over time. While

the resource-based view (RBV) of strategic manage-

ment and organizational learning were constitutive of

the DCV in the earlier stages of its evolution, more

recent literature indicates that the field is shifting

towards a more integrated agenda of research. We

have labelled the core cluster of the current DCV,which captures this research field’s nascent, fragile

identity, as ‘strategic learning and change’. This

stream focuses on learning capabilities and relates

them to firm performance, thus merging aspects of

organization theory and strategic management. We

show that, in the course of the DCV’s evolution, the

RBV has made a ‘learning turn’, while organiza-

tional learning has undergone a ‘strategic turn’. In

addition, we identify several peripheral clusters of

research that reflect a parallel process of differentia-

tion in the overall field. Both trends, i.e. of integra-

tion and differentiation, attest to the emancipation of

the DCV as a distinct approach to strategic manage-

ment. Nevertheless, despite an increasing number of

papers that focus on the microfoundations of the

approach – for example, routines, practices or cog-

nition – the DCV still lacks consensual concepts that

allow comparisons of empirical studies and advance

the theoretical understanding of dynamic capabili-

ties. In the light of the above, we discuss some pos-

sible directions for further research.

2 R. Vogel and W.H. Güttel

© 2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


The paper is organized as follows: in the next

section, the data and methods are introduced. We

commence with a brief review of bibliometric appli-

cations in management research and compare the

complementary techniques of co-citation analysis

and bibliographic coupling. Subsequently, we outline

the multivariate methods by means of which we process the results of bibliographic coupling. A brief

documentation of the selected data completes the

second section. In the third section, we analyse and

compare the extracted bibliographic networks and

divide them into several clusters. In the fourth

section, we discuss the findings in order to delineate

the various research schools and perspectives within

the DCV and to identify the possible paths of the

field’s further development. We conclude with

remarks on the directions in which future research on

the DCV could develop.

Data and methods

The method followed in this review is rooted in

bibliometrics, i.e. the statistical analysis of scholarly

communication through publications (De Solla Price

1965; Garfield 1955; Pritchard 1969). The most

common bibliometric methods are variants of cita-

tion analysis. Citation retrieval can be used descrip-

tively (as opposed to evaluatively; Van Leeuwen

2004), to reveal the intellectual traditions within a

field and to trace its development in the course of time. Advanced bibliometric methods were intro-

duced in strategic management research by Ramos-

Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro (2004), who explored

the intellectual structure of the field by analysing

citations from issues that were published in that

field’s leading journal in the first two decades after

its launch. In their study, they identified the emer-

gence of the RBV, whose pivotal role in recent

strategic management research was confirmed by a

complementary study by Nerur et al . (2008). While

those studies looked at the delineation of the RBV

within the broader field of strategic management,

Acedo et al . (2006) turned it into a bibliometric

subject in its own right, tracing the main research

trajectories of the RBV. One of those trajectories

records the development of the DCV as an emergent

school of thought. A recent study by Di Stefano et al .

(2010) further narrowed the focus of analysis on

scholarly orientations within the DCV. The authors

identified the main theoretical traditions in which the

approach is anchored and showed how different con-

ceptions of the construct have evolved from these.

Complementing the study by Di Stefano et al .

(2010), the present paper focuses on the evolution of

these theoretical traditions in current research.

Co-citation analysis vs. bibliographic coupling

Two citation-based methods of mapping scientific

literature in intellectual fields have dominated biblio-

metrics over the past five decades: co-citation ana-

lysis and bibliographic coupling. Co-citations and

bibliographic couplings are intertextual relationships

between scientific publications that are established

by the referencing behaviour of authors. Both

methods share the basic assumption that these rela-

tionships reflect some textual similarity between the

co-cited or coupled documents. However, while these

techniques appear to be alike at first glance, a closer

look reveals considerable differences. A co-citation

is defined as the frequency with which two docu-

ments1 are cited together in the literature (Small

1973). Documents are thus co-cited if they are

included in the same reference list. In contrast,

bibliographic coupling is said to occur when two

documents have at least one reference in common

(Kessler 1963). Documents are thus coupled if their

bibliographies overlap. It follows from these defini-

tions that co-citation analysis and bibliographic cou-

pling differ with regard to the level of analysis: while

a co-citation is a similarity relationship between two

cited publications, bibliographic coupling is ameasure of association between two citing publica-

tions (see Figure 1).

This difference has important implications with

regard to the analytical scope of co-citation analysis

and bibliographic coupling. First, co-citation ana-

lysis is a dynamic approach, while bibliographic cou-

pling is static. A co-citation is established by authors

of papers other than those it links; in other words, it

is a relationship extrinsic to the documents involved.

In contrast, a bibliographic coupling is established

through references made by the authors of the

documents involved and is thus intrinsic to thosedocuments.The coupling strength of published docu-

ments is determined by the amount of overlap

between their bibliographies. Therefore, the results

of bibliographic coupling are independent of the

point in time at which the analysis is conducted,

while co-citation frequencies can increase over time.

1In this paper, we only discuss document co-citation ana-lysis. The technique could also be applied to other biblio-graphic items such as authors or journals.

DCV in Strategic Management 3


7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


Second, precisely because of that feature (i.e. that

citations accumulate over time), co-citation analysis

lends itself to tracing the intellectual roots of an

academic field through the identification of its

foundational works. The older a document, the

longer the period in which it can have accumulated

citations. Compared with the ‘classics’ of an aca-

demic field, more recent publications have had lesstime to leave their marks, regardless of their potential

to become classic works in the future. In view of that,

most researchers who employ co-citation analysis

acknowledge that the method is biased towards ‘the

past’ of an academic field (Gregoire et al . 2006;

Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004). In con-

trast, bibliographic coupling is suitable for detecting

current trends and future priorities as they are

reflected at the forefront of research. Documents that

include citations are de facto more recent than the

documents they cite (with the exception of docu-

ments cited as ‘forthcoming’). Shifting the focus of analysis from cited to citing texts, i.e. from texts that

are included as references to the texts that include

references, shifts the emphasis from older to younger

publications and thus from traditions to trends in a

specific field. This feature makes bibliographic cou-

pling a particularly important method in subject

areas characterized by vibrant publication activity,

such as the DCV.

Third, as the previous points suggest, while

co-citation is a reliable indicator of the impact of

publications, bibliographic coupling measures publi-

cation activity. According to the general assumptions

of bibliometrics, citation counts reflect the resonance

of a paper in the scholarly community (Verbeek et al .

2002). Co-citation analysis focuses on the most

influential contributions to a given field. This is

because, in standard applications of this method, data

are reduced on the basis of a specific threshold of

citation counts (McCain 1990). In contrast, biblio-

graphic coupling considers documents independ-

ently of the number of citations, thus reflecting the

production rather than consumption of scientific

publications. While the latter, less restrictive proce-

dure means that mainstreams are not overempha-

sized, it may over-represent works that turn out to be

insignificant in the course of a field’s intellectual

development.

In sum, co-citation analysis is advantageous for

mapping the intellectual heritage of a particular field on the basis of high-impact publications, but tends to

neglect the publication dynamics at the forefront of

research. Bibliographic coupling, in contrast, cap-

tures more recent contributions, including the classics

of tomorrow, so to speak, however, this method has a

blind spot with regard to the history of an intellectual

field. Because our intention is to focus on present

activities, rather than recount past achievements, we

have chosento apply bibliographiccoupling andat the

same time introduce this method in the field of man-

agement research. Scholars who try to orientate them-

selves in this field in order to set their own researchagenda are more likely to benefit from looking not

only at mainstreams but also at ‘newstreams’. In that

respect, this study complements the co-citation ana-

lysis of the DCV that was recently conducted by Di

Stefano et al . (2010). Empirical evidence confirms

thatthese two methods produce considerably different

results and thus supplement, rather than substitute

each other (Jarneving 2005).

Network and factor analysis

Drawing on the literature published between 1994

and 2011, we compiled a pool of data, which

we analysed using bibliographic coupling. As has

been outlined above, bibliographic coupling refers

to the number of references shared by at least

two documents. The method assumes that, the greater

the number of references to the same documents, the

greater the similarity between the citing texts. The

intermediate result of bibliographic coupling is an

aggregated matrix that displays for all document pairs

Citing document

Cited document

A B

aa b

A

Co-citation

Bibliographic

coupling

Figure 1. Co-citation and bibliographic coupling



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


the co-occurrences of references in their bibliogra-

phies. This similarity matrix must be further proc-

essed with standard multivariate methods that allow

the graphic or metric detection of homogeneous sub-

fields within a heterogeneous research landscape.

We processed the raw matrix using two comple-

mentary methods. First, we applied network analysis,a method that increasingly attracts attention among

researchers who employ bibliometric methods (Cor-

nelius et al . 2006; Ma et al . 2008; McMillan 2008;

Neely 2005; Pilkington and Chai 2008; Pilkington

and Fitzgerald 2006; Pilkington and Meredith 2009;

Schildt et al . 2006).2 We created network diagrams

on the basis of the spring embedder algorithm pro-

vided by the UCINET software package by Borgatti

et al . (2002). Similarly to multidimensional scaling

approaches, this graph layout algorithm optimizes

distances between every pair of nodes. The distances

between any two nodes are approximated by the pathlength, i.e. the number of edges between them. The

shorter the mean path length between a given node

and other nodes, the higher its centrality in the

network. Although network analysis in bibliometric

studies is mostly applied for visualization purposes,

a few studies also compute network metrics (McMil-

lan 2008; Pilkington and Chai 2008; Pilkington and

Fitzgerald 2006).

In the present study, in addition to the visual infor-

mation presented in the network diagrams, we calcu-

lated metric measures for the density and cohesion of

subgroups within the network. We chose to reportthese measures because they help to assess how the

identified perspectives are delineated within the

DCV. Here, ‘density’ refers to the distinctiveness of a

subgroup within the entire network; it is thus an

attribute of a partial network. Density is calculated as

the ratio of realized links to all possible links within

a subgroup. A maximum density is obtained when all

nodes in a subgroup are linked to all other nodes in

that group. As a bibliometric indicator, density

reflects the extent to which various streams within a

subfield of research pursue their agendas on common

grounds. A related network measure is ‘cohesion’,

which is an attribute of a partial network, too. Cohe-

sion measures relate the density of a subgroup to its

interconnectedness with other groups. A subgroup is

highly cohesive if its members are densely intercon-

nected, but only weakly linked to non-members. In bibliometric applications, cohesion indicates the

extent to which a subfield of research pursues an

agenda that is independent of other discourses.

In order to enhance the robustness of the results,

we complemented the network analysis with factor

analysis, which is a routine clustering procedure in

bibliometrics (McCain 1990). For this purpose, we

converted the raw data matrix to correlation matrices

based on Pearson’s coefficient. Using measures of

relative document similarity instead of mere fre-

quency counts has the advantage that it takes the

coupling ‘profiles’ of these documents into account,rather than the absolute co-occurrence of references

(McCain 1990). Here, we considered the main diago-

nal of the correlation matrix as missing values. An

alternative procedure suggested for co-citation ana-

lysis by White and Griffith (1981) (dividing the sum

of the three highest scores by two) led to similar

results, so we left it out for the sake of simplicity. The

factor extraction by means of principal component

analysis and scree tests was followed by Varimax

rotation with Kaiser normalization. Documents with

mixed loadings, i.e. with significant loadings (0.4)

on more than one factor, were assigned to the factor on which they loaded highest.

Data

In the data sampling process, we started the analysis

with a broad data set that was gradually reduced at

later stages. We initially selected all documents that

included the search term ‘dynamic capabilit*’ in the

title, abstract and/or keywords from the Social

Science Citation Index® (SSCI), the authoritative

bibliographic database covering academic journals in

the social sciences. Since its first appearance in the

academic literature (Teece et al . 1990), the term

‘dynamic capability’ has become a technical term in

strategic management research. We thus expected it

to be indicative of documents that were of potential

relevance to our study. Of course, some authors use

the phrase ‘dynamic capability’ without the intention

to refer and contribute to the respective discourse in

strategic management. However, since in bibliomet-

ric terms items with low or no relevance to the topic

2In contrast to our study, many papers apply multidimen-sional scaling (MDS) for science mapping (e.g. Acedo et al .2006; Di Stefano et al . 2010; Nerur et al . 2008; Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro 2004). We prefer network ana-lysis because MDS can transform metric similarities intospatial distances only for a limited number of documentswithin the tolerance range of stress values, while network analysis can display an unlimited number of documents asnetwork nodes. Thus, network analysis allows us to draw amore comprehensive picture of the DCV, which has rapidlygained in scope in the recent literature.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


keep being unrelated to the literature in this field,

such items were successively eliminated through the

application of thresholds at later stages of the ana-

lysis. Using the results that our search term yielded,

we compiled an initial data set, which contained

1152 items (i.e. articles, reviews and proceedings

papers) published in academic journals until and

including 2011. These texts contained 91,137 refer-

ences to 37,541 documents.

The proliferation of publications on dynamic

capabilities shows an exponential growth since the

appearance of the first journal article on that topic in1994 (see Figure 2). In fact, the number of relevant

papers has approximately doubled within the last

three years (i.e. from 2009 to 2011). To account fully

for this trend, we adopted a comparative approach to

the analysis of the data, which we divided into two

roughly equal parts. We initially ran an analysis only

on the first half, which consisted of 560 items pub-

lished between 1994 and 2008. We then added the

remaining 592 documents and repeated the proce-

dure for the whole time series from 1994 to 2011. By

comparing the results, we were able to track how the

most recent publications have shaped the biblio-

graphic network and to identify in which directions

research on the DCV is developing.

Results

Bibliographic network, 1994–2008

The first network of bibliographic couplings within

the DCV, which covers the period 1994–2008, is

presented in Figure 3. The nodes symbolize citing

documents (i.e. documents that include citations),

while the edges represent bibliographic couplings, i.e.

the number of references that any two nodes share.To

achieve clarity, we specified a minimum number

of couplings between a document and a minimum

number of other documents, and only considered

publications at or above these thresholds. By varying

the thresholds within a broad range of values, we

adjusted the resolution of the method in order to

reduce complexity without being too reductive. While

the size of the network varied when we applied differ-ent thresholds, its structure did not change signifi-

cantly. Eventually, we decided to consider only those

items that had at least 16 couplings with at least two

other documents (tie strength 16, node degree 2).

This procedure reduced the stock of documents from

the 560 initially selected items to the 120 most inter-

related documents. Table 1 shows the summary

results, which include size, explained variance,

density and cohesion of the extracted clusters. We

assigned the documents to four factors, which explain

a total variance of 93.0% (see Table 1). Because we

deleted documents with no significant loadings and

reapplied the thresholds afterwards, the final number

of nodes in the network amounted to 105.

In the network of bibliographic couplings, several

regions that display densely interconnected nodes are

prominent. By contrast, it is harder to discern a

distinct network core. The polycentric structure is

confirmed by the results of the factor analysis, as the

emerging clusters are largely congruent with the

extracted factors (which are represented by different

1 1 2 4 4 1 7 11 22

44 4967

102 112

133

161

208223

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

N u m b e r o f d o c u m e n t s

Year

Figure 2. Growth of publications on the DCV



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


F i g u r e 3 .

B i b l i o g r a p h i c n e t w o r k , 1

9 9 4 –

2 0 0 8



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


node symbols and shades). The network is dominated

by two large clusters to which two smaller subgroups

are peripherally attached. In the following, we

outline the content of the publications that each sub-

field contains, the stream of literature they represent

and how they contribute to the DCV in strategicmanagement. Of course, each cluster has a richer

tradition and is far more complex than its brief

description suggests.

Learning and innovation. In our view, ‘learning

and innovation’ is an appropriate umbrella label for

the relatively heterogeneous body of literature that

loads on the first factor. Documents in this cluster

build on diverse theoretical foundations, e.g. on evo-

lutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982),

behavioural theory (Cyert and March 1963) and the

knowledge-based view (Kogut and Zander 1992). Aconsiderable number of those documents address the

emerging tension between the building of new and

the use of existing capabilities or, in broader terms,

between stability and change. These works shed light

on the alignment of exploration and exploitation

(Benner and Tushman 2003; Lubatkin et al . 2006;

O’Reilly and Tushman 2008; Raisch and Birkinshaw

2008), on the responses of incumbent companies to

discontinuous change (Benner 2007; Gilbert 2006;

Keil 2004; Keil et al . 2008; Lavie 2006b; Martin and

Eisenhardt 2004) and on radical innovation capabili-

ties within established firms (O’Connor 2008;

O’Connor and DeMartino 2006; O’Connor et al .

2008). Another group of documents in this cluster is

concerned with how a firm’s capabilities can be

advanced by building on the stock of existing know-

ledge in new domains (Cattani 2005, 2006, 2008;

Nerkar and Roberts 2004), as well as through emer-

ging R&D capabilities (Nerkar and Roberts 2004;

Tzabbar et al . 2008) and evolving resources more

generally (Ahuja and Katila 2004). Other publica-

tions deal with the subject of firm acquisitions, which

are a typical setting for reconfiguration capabilities

(Barkema and Schijven 2008; Puranam and Srikanth

2007; Zollo and Singh 2004). A smaller group of

publications on the microfoundations of dynamic

capabilities, particularly on the cognitive skills of individuals (Gavetti 2005; Kaplan 2008; Teece

2007), completes this cluster. Although this is, to

some extent, a cross-cutting issue through all clus-

ters, accordant works figure most prominently in the

‘learning and innovation’ cluster.

Resource-based view. We chose to describe the

second cluster as ‘RBV’, because resource-based

theory stands out as the predominant theoretical per-

spective in most of the publications it includes

(Barney 1991; Conner 1991; Penrose 1959; Peteraf

1993; Wernerfelt 1984). What unifies one group of works within this cluster is a substantial number of

‘affirmative’ references to the original version of the

RBV; dynamic capabilities are referred to only en

passant. For example, many of these publications

review the state-of-the-art of RBV research (Arm-

strong and Shimizu 2007; Newbert 2007; Newbert

2008; Wade and Hulland 2004), call for its extension

and operationalization (Colbert 2004; De Toni and

Tonchia 2003; Escrig-Tena and Bou-Llusar 2005;

Newbert et al . 2008) or apply standard versions

of the perspective, particularly to IT capabilities

(Hulland et al . 2007; Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1998;

Melville et al . 2004; Soto-Acosta and Meroño-

Cerdan 2008). However, the references to the RBV

made by other works in this cluster have compara-

tively ‘negative’ connotations. These publications

support the ‘dynamization’ of resource-based theory

(Helfat 2000; Helfat and Peteraf 2003) and draw on

it mainly to stress the differences rather than the

common ground between the DCV and the RBV. For

example, the RBV is criticized for neglecting the

Table 1. Full network, 1994–2008: factor analysis and network metrics

No. Symbol Label No. of

docs

Factor analysis Network analysis

Eigenvalue Variance

explained (%)

Cohesiona Density b

1 Learning and Innovation 41 49.682 41.402 1.489 0.179

2 RBV 49 43.552 36.294 1.713 0.2433 Vertical scope 8 11.241 9.368 2.420 0.576

4 Alliances 7 7.117 5.931 2.055 0.333

aCohesion index of Bock and Husain (1950). bTotal number of ties divided by the total number of possible ties in binarized network.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


negative effects of assets and capabilities on firm

rents (Arend 2004), for paying limited attention to

the process of resource creation (Bowman and

Collier 2006) or for disregarding resources in the

interfirm domain (Lavie 2006a; Mathews 2003;

Zander and Zander 2005). To overcome the static

approach of the RBV, the earlier works on dynamiccapabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Teece

et al . 1997) open this perspective to other streams of

literature, in particular to evolutionary economics

(Nelson and Winter 1982) and behavioural theory

(Cyert and March 1963). Interestingly, both theories

also play an important role as the theoretical founda-

tion of papers in the ‘learning and innovation’ cluster.

The imprint of evolutionary and behavioural theories

is most apparent in articles on strategic entrepreneur-

ship (Ireland et al . 2003), the role of knowledge in

strategy formulation (McGee and Thomas 2007),

learning (Isobe et al . 2008; King 2007; Uhlenbruck et al . 2003), human motivation (Gottschalg and

Zollo 2007) and managerial decision-making (Adner

and Helfat 2003). Finally, this cluster includes long-

standing research in marketing that has co-evolved

with the DCV (Jarratt 2008; Kyriakopoulos and

Moorman 2004; Morgan et al . 2003).

Vertical scope. We labelled the third cluster in the

network ‘vertical scope’, because works in this

cluster focus on vertical integration and strategic

outsourcing (Holcomb and Hitt 2007; Jacobides

2008; Jacobides and Hitt 2005; Jacobides and Winter 2005). These issues also raise more general questions

about organizational boundaries (Santos and Eisen-

hardt 2005) and the choice of governance modes

(Parmigiani 2007). References to transaction cost

economics (TCE) are the binding component of the

vertical scope cluster. While the RBV and TCE have

long been regarded as opposite theories of the firm,

they converge, to some extent, under the capability-

based view (Madhok 2002). In this line of reasoning,

dynamic capabilities are significant as sources of

capability differentials between firms, since learning

curves are assumed to bring about changes in a

firm’s skills and abilities (Jacobides 2008). However,

this cluster is more isolated from those subgroups

that refer to learning theory more explicitly.

Alliances. We named our fourth and final factor

‘alliances’, since this cluster includes mostly publi-

cations on alliance capabilities (Heimeriks and

Duysters 2007; Rothaermel and Deeds 2006) and

alliance learning (Kale and Singh 2007). The

stronger a firm’s alliance orientation, the more prom-

ising its external sourcing in networked environ-

ments (Kandemir et al . 2006). Once a firm has

entered an alliance, experiences from prior or

ongoing partnerships improve the chances of the

alliance’s success (Heimeriks and Duysters 2007;

Rothaermel and Deeds 2006). These performanceeffects increase when firms leverage their alliance

experiences and translate them into alliance or

network capabilities (Heimeriks and Duysters 2007;

Kale and Singh 2007; Rothaermel and Deeds 2006;

Walter et al . 2006). Alliance capabilities are built

through various learning mechanisms such as the

internalization, integration and institutionalization of

alliance know-how (Heimeriks and Duysters 2007;

Kale and Singh 2007), whereby the effectiveness of

these mechanisms depends, among other factors, on

the type of the alliance (Rothaermel and Deeds

2006). The separate cluster on alliances suggests thatmechanisms of external learning and forming capa-

bilities in alliances differ remarkably from those in

other settings.

Bibliographic network, 1994–2011

In the second step of analysis, we integrated docu-

ments that were published from 2009 up to and

including 2011 and repeated the bibliometric ana-

lysis on the full database in order to trace the path

along which the DCV had developed during that

period. Expanding the data sample more thandoubled the amount of processed data. For that

reason, we applied a higher threshold than in the first

step of the analysis and only considered publications

that displayed at least 19 couplings with at least two

other documents (tie strength 19, degree 2).

After excluding items that did not show significant

loadings in the factor analysis, we ended up with a

network that contained 132 interrelated documents

(see Figure 4). The factor analysis revealed six com-

ponents that, together, explain 80.3% of the total

variance in the bibliographic network (see Table 2).

Integrating the most recently published documents

into the analysis yielded a network composed of one

large cluster and five much smaller clusters. The first

component explains approximately three times as

much variance as the next largest factor. Strikingly,

the explanatory power of the smaller components

does not co-vary strongly with cluster size and

network cohesion. For instance, the third largest

component is a small yet dense cluster, while the

fourth factor clusters a larger number of publications



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


F i g u r e 4 .

B i b l i o g r a p h i c n e t w o r k ,

1 9 9

4 –

2 0 1 1



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


that are widely dispersed over the network. This sug-

gests that the subfields of the DCV differ consider-

ably with regard to the coherence of their research

agendas. We now briefly outline the identified clus-ters with regard to their structure and content.

Strategic learning and change. We labelled the

dominant cluster in the entire bibliographic network

‘strategic learning and change’. Approximately half

the works it contains had been previously assigned to

the RBV cluster, so the ‘strategic learning and

change’ cluster exhibits a similarly strong focus on

the strategic management of firm resources in pursuit

of competitive advantage and rent appropriation.

However, in this cluster the emphasis has shifted to

learning capabilities with relation to firm perform-ance. As a result, the cluster’s profile, which is

shaped by more recent publications, differs consid-

erably from earlier stages of the field’s development.

For example, the more recent publications draw more

attention to knowledge assets that are leveraged

into human capital and organizational capabilities

through learning mechanisms on multiple levels

(Clougherty and Moliterno 2010; Moustaghfir 2009;

Ployhart and Moliterno 2011). This reveals that the

creation, recombination and integration of know-

ledge is crucial to the firm’s overall innovation

capacity (Garcia-Muina et al . 2010; Regner and

Zander 2011). The increasingly dynamic view of

capabilities also raises the question of how they

co-evolve with other organizational phenomena such

as governance structures (Lee et al . 2011) or the bar-

gaining power of stakeholders (Coff 2010). Overall,

the research that this cluster represents contributes to

the dynamization of the RBV, which many authors

have called for, and directs it towards issues of stra-

tegic learning and change. As the cluster also

includes reviews of the dynamic capability approach

(Ambrosini and Bowman 2009; Barreto 2010) as

well as works that attempt to conceptualize, opera-

tionalize and measure dynamic capabilities (Kim and Mahoney 2010; Pavlou and El Sawy 2011), it lies at

the core of the DCV.

Technological innovation and adaptation. Roughly

two-thirds of the publications assigned to the second

factor were part of the previous ‘learning and inno-

vation’ cluster. Focusing especially on large incum-

bent firms in specific industries, these works keep

radical innovation capabilities, technological adapta-

tion and strategic responses to change high on the

research agenda. For that reason, we gave it the new

label of ‘technological innovation and adaptation’.For example, this stream of research investigates the

way in which capabilities affect how firms decide

when and how to adopt emerging technologies

(Anand et al . 2010). Technological adaptation may

be inhibited by organizational routines, such as

process management practices, that disadvantage

incumbents in the face of radical discontinuities

(Benner 2009). In particular, pre-existing capabilities

have an impact on the choice of sourcing modes that,

in turn, affect the acquisition of new capabilities

(Capron and Mitchell 2009). Organizational

responses to technological change may also be influ-

enced by managerial cognition (Eggers and Kaplan

2009) or securities analysts (Benner 2010). All in all,

research in this subfield is highly cumulative with

regard to the antecedents of technological innovation

and adaptation.

Vertical scope. The third subgroup encompasses

most of the works that composed the ‘vertical scope’

cluster in the previous analysis. There are only three

Table 2. Full network, 1994–2011: factor analysis and network metrics

No. Symbol Label No. of docs Factor analysis Network analysis

Eigenvalue Variance

explained (%)

Cohesiona Density b

1 Strategic learning and change 55 50.636 36.961 0.342 0.127

2 Technological innovation and adaptation 24 16.191 11.819 1.741 0.1383 Vertical scope 9 13.266 9.683 2.127 0.222

4 Microfoundations and acquisitions 15 10.514 7.675 1.790 0.191

5 Ambidexterity 15 10.011 7.308 2.386 0.238

6 Alliances 10 9.374 6.842 0.633 0.289

aCohesion index of Bock and Husain (1950). bTotal number of ties divided by the total number of possible ties in binarized network.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


new publications in this subfield, which have low

loadings on the respective factor and are thus not

characteristic of this stream of research. Given that

economic analyses of vertical integration and strate-

gic outsourcing remain the dominant theme, we

decided to retain the label ‘vertical scope’.

Microfoundations and acquisitions. One half of the

next cluster consists of publications previously

included in the ‘learning and innovation’ cluster, the

other half is composed of new publications. This

composite body of literature addresses two distinct

but interrelated topics: the microfoundations of the

DCV and the knowledge-based view of corporate

acquisitions. The works that are concerned with the

first topic trace dynamic capabilities back to routines,

processes and collective activities that are rooted in

the intentional behaviour of individuals (Felin and

Foss 2009). To illuminate this subject and to bridgethe ‘micro–macro’ divide in management research,

the authors of those studies attempt to identify the

components of capabilities and to investigate how

they interrelate across the individual and the collec-

tive levels (Lewin et al . 2011; Salvato and Rerup

2011; Schilke and Goerzen 2010). The remaining

works in this cluster take a knowledge-based view of

corporate acquisitions (Zollo 2009; Zollo and Reuer

2010). These works shed light on integration capa-

bilities and learning mechanisms that foster post-

acquisition knowledge spillovers. These streams

merge into a single cluster, which we decided to call‘microfoundations and acquisitions’. It is possible

that these two streams are seen to merge because

research on corporate acquisitions analyses manage-

rial processes in acquisition decisions and integration

activities. These efforts to look at the components of

capabilities at the individual level also contribute to

the microfoundations of the DCV.

Ambidexterity. Most works included in the fifth

cluster are concerned with the discussion that char-

acterized the subfield of ‘learning and innovation’,

except that here almost all relevant publications have

been published between January 2009 and December

2011; that is, they are very recent. This body of

literature obviously represents a particularly vibrant

subfield of DCV. Most works in this cluster address

the balance of flexibility and efficiency (Eisenhardt

et al . 2010), stability and change (Farjoun 2010),

incremental and radical innovation (Tushman et al .

2010) or exploration and exploitation (Lavie et al .

2010; Raisch et al . 2009); for that reason, we gave

this cluster the label ‘ambidexterity’. Ambidextrous

organizations are able both to explore new know-

ledge domains and to exploit current ones. Related

research predominantly deals with the antecedents

and consequences of ambidextrous learning. For

example, factors that promote ambidexterity include

integration mechanisms at the senior team level(Jansen et al . 2009), intellectual capital architectures

(Kang and Snell 2009), total quality management

(Luzon and Pasola 2011), organizational design

(Tushman et al . 2010), executive leadership (Martin

2010) and managerial cognition (Eisenhardt et al .

2010). The publications that are typical of the

‘ambidexterity’ cluster show many similarities and

interconnections with those in the ‘technological

innovation and adaptation’ cluster.

Alliances. Finally, the smallest component encom-

passes a variety of publications. Few of the publica-tions of the original ‘alliances’ cluster appear in this

one, which consists mainly of recent publications,

integrated in the second round of the analysis, and of

publications that were initially included in the ‘learn-

ing and innovation’ field. Alliances, however, are still

the main theme of the recomposed cluster, for which

reason we have decided to retain the label. Much of

the research reflected in this cluster focuses on learn-

ing from alliance partners, and thus essentially

addresses the question of what enables firms to

source knowledge beyond their own boundaries and

what the outcomes of such processes are. The per-formance effects of external sourcing, for example,

depend on what kind of experience a firm has gained

from previous alliances (Hoang and Rothaermel

2010) and on how this is combined with internal

sourcing strategies (Rothaermel and Alexandre

2009). Because of this focus on learning across

organizational boundaries, the concept of absorptive

capacity figures prominently in this cluster (Rothaer-

mel and Alexandre 2009; Volberda et al . 2010).

Other publications in this cluster address how firms

can retain knowledge that they have sourced outside

their boundaries and how they can use interorganiza-

tional relations to extend their knowledge base (Lich-

tenthaler 2008).

Discussion

The results of this study reveal the breadth of the

diversified territory of the dynamic capabilities

approach in strategic management. The networks that



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


we extracted from the extant literature on the basis of

shared references give a visual impression of the

densely interconnected documents that are encom-

passed in this field of inquiry. Running closer factor and network analyses on the data, we detected the

topics to which priority is given within this field of

research. The DCV has integrated theoretical aspects

of evolutionary economics, behavioural theory and

the knowledge-based view into core issues of stra-

tegic management. In conceptual terms, several

dynamic capabilities, such as sensing and opportu-

nity recognition, or capabilities related to learning,

reconfiguration and replication, have created distinct

bodies of literature. It should be noted that, under-

neath the clusters that emerged from our results,

there may be considerable variety even within thesubgroups, considering that a particular body of lit-

erature might be relevant to a number of different

topics. Our overall results support the view that

dynamic capabilities are far from being a well-

defined construct based on a coherent theoretical tra-

dition and validated with strong empirical evidence

(Arend and Bromiley 2009). On the contrary, the

field appears to be developing along a path of theo-

retical and conceptual diversification, but also with

the emergence of an identity-building foundation.

The bibliometric review of the diffusion of DCV

literature from a dynamic perspective reveals the dif-

ferent strands of emerging DCV research (Figure 5).

The main avenue of DCV research corresponds

to the core cluster ‘strategic learning and change’,

which originated in a learning turn within earlier

research on dynamic capabilities in the context of the

RBV perspective. We further identified three clusters

that reflect efforts within DCV research to uncover

the processes of firm evolution through the develop-

ment of new technologies, through balancing

exploratory and exploitative learning processes or

through the acquisition of other companies. These

were the ‘technological innovation and adaptation’,

‘ambidexterity’ and ‘microfoundations and acquisi-

tions’ clusters, which represent the further differen-

tiation of the DCV and its linkages to related

subfields, in particular to innovation and ambidexter-ity research streams. Lesser current research paths

in the DCV are represented by the minor clusters

‘vertical scope’ and ‘alliances’. All clusters include

works concerned with the reactive adaptations to

environmental demands, observed in firms that aim

to remain competitive, as well as the proactive and

entrepreneurial approach many firms adopt (such as

developing new products or markets) in order to

create competitive advantage.

To observe the thematic expansion of the DCV, we

adopted a dynamic perspective, comparing two

views of the DCV network: one covering the period 1994–2008 (Figure 3) and a second one, covering

the full period 1994–2011 (Figure 4). In that respect,

our analysis goes beyond traditional bibliometric

reviews. Furthermore, through this innovative meth-

odological approach, we were able to identify the

trajectories of research fields within the DCV to

indicate potential avenues for further research

(Figure 5).

More specifically, this bibliometric analysis con-

tributes to DCV research in three ways: first, the data

show that research within the DCV field leads both to

differentiation and to identity formation. Compared with earlier DCV research (that is, until 2008; see

Figure 3), recent research (that is, until 2011; see

Figure 4) shows a shift from a cluster reflecting

classical RBV research (dynamic capabilities are in

those works mentioned only with minor notions to

emphasize generally the need of a dynamic evolve-

ment of the firm’s resource base) to a cluster where

learning processes are driven mainly by dynamic

capabilities. This cluster, which we labelled ‘strategic

learning and change’, turned out to be the dominant

one within the DCV. The strategic governance of

learning processes with relation to reconfiguring the

firm’s resource base emerged as the DCV’s core

topic. In contrast to the backward-looking co-citation

analysis of Di Stefano et al . (2010), our forward-

looking data indicate that the works comprising the

cluster ‘strategic learning and change’ form the

identity-building base of the DCV. In that cluster,

classical RBV arguments merge with learning topics

in the context of reconfiguration processes, while

the emphasis is seen to shift from minor notes on

Alliances Alliances

Learning &

Innovation

RBV

Vertical Scope

Strategic Learning

& Change

Technological

Innovation &

Adaptation

Vertical Scope

Microfoundations& Acquisitions

Ambidexterity

1994-2008 1994-2011

Learning Turn

Strategic Turn

Differentiation

Continuity

Differentiation

Differentiation

Recomposition

Figure 5. Development patterns of DCV research



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


developing a firm’s resource base in the context of

the RBV to papers that perceive the DCV as a dis-

tinct approach or even as the main lens for analysing

organizational development. The works comprising

this cluster feature prominent reviews (Ambrosini

and Bowman 2009; Barreto 2010; Wang and Ahmed

2007), as well as fundamental papers in DCVresearch (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Teece 2007;

Teece et al . 1997), which indicates that the ‘strategic

learning and change’ cluster represents the core of

the DCV.

Topics such as capabilities and knowledge also

explore the foundation of sustainable competitive

advantage. The bibliometric analysis identified a

learning turn in strategy literature. More precisely, it

showed that, especially among publications that

came out in or after 2009, behavioural aspects

increasingly under pin strategic topics in the DCV. We

also noted a strategic turn in the literature on learningin the DCV field that corresponds directly to the

learning turn; the link between learning and firm

performance features prominently in those works.

These streams of research tend to merge. Our data

confirm the analysis of Di Stefano et al . (2010), who

found that behavioural theory (Cyert and March

1963) and evolutionary economics (Nelson and

Winter 1982) form the theoretical foundation of both

streams and thus facilitate their integration. As the

first network indicates (Figure 3), the DCV is no

longer a by-product of the RBV. Instead, in the

second network (Figure 4), the identity of the DCV builds mainly on the idea that organizations need to

govern processes of learning and change, which the

relevant research explores, in order to adapt their

capabilities to novel situations and thus keep pace

with environmental development.

Two additional clusters emerged from the initial

‘learning and innovation’ cluster, which fit our obser-

vation that, from a strategic perspective, learning

becomes central to the DCV: ‘ambidexterity’ and

‘technological innovation and adaptation’. Both clus-

ters are more homogeneous than the original one,

and the focus of the publications they contain is

narrower in comparison. Research on ambidexterity,

i.e. a firm’s capability to combine exploratory and

exploitative learning, sheds light onto the firm’s

internal learning processes and how firms can

achieve a balance between different learning modes

in order to remain competitive. In the works included

in the ‘technological innovation and adaptation’

cluster, we see the other side of the same coin: they

investigate the firm’s adaptive responses (such as

innovation) to market pressure that arises from new

technologies or changing customer expectations.

Second, the bibliometric analysis identifies

research into the microfoundations of dynamic capa-

bilities. Compared with the first network (Figure 3),

in the second network this stream of research is not

only more prominent but also present in differentfields (Figure 4). The publications contained in the

‘microfoundations and acquisitions’ cluster build on

research on routines, practices and managerial cog-

nition to identify those mechanisms and patterns that

lead to organizational adaptation. Given the signifi-

cance of the DCV concept, precisely this line of

research can provide the DCV with a conceptual base

that, on the one hand, enables the comparison of

empirical studies and, on the other, helps to deter-

mine concrete manoeuvre options for management

practitioners. Nevertheless, more research in this

field is essential, as the different works within thecluster are only loosely related to each other.

Third, the bibliometric analysis complements

qualitative reviews of the DCV. Reviews continu-

ously pursue the concrete meaning of the DCV

concept and present taxonomies of the components

of dynamic capabilities (Ambrosini and Bowman

2009; Easterby-Smith et al . 2009; Helfat and Peteraf

2009; Helfat and Winter 2011; Wang and Ahmed

2007; Zahra et al . 2006). In contrast to the

co-citation analysis of Di Stefano et al . (2010),

which traces the origins of the DCV, we elucidate

current trends and future perspectives in DCVresearch by employing the method of bibliographic

coupling. According to our data, the diffusion of

DCV research leads to the further differentiation of

the field’s research agenda, but also to the emergence

of an identity-building core of the DCV, which

matches the findings of qualitative reviews.

The identity-building core cluster of the DCV

‘strategic learning and change’ covers the topic of

how firms modify their resource base in response to

dynamically evolving environmental demands. Such

responses are characterized by the processes of

learning, reconfiguration and adaptation, which

describe the dynamics of capability evolution both in

our bibliometric analysis and in qualitative reviews

(Ambrosini and Bowman 2009; Barreto 2010;

Easterby-Smith et al . 2009; Helfat and Winter 2011;

Schreyögg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Teece 2007;

Wang and Ahmed 2007; Zahra et al . 2006).

According to our bibliometric analysis, other

strands of DCV research are in the process of differ-

entiation, and their empirical and conceptual scope is



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


also only partially addressed in qualitative reviews.

In the ‘technological innovation and adaptation’

cluster, sensing opportunities, absorbing knowledge,

innovation or entrepreneurial behaviour (Barreto

2010; Teece 2007; Wang and Ahmed 2007; Zahra

et al . 2006) shape a common overlap. In the ‘ambi-

dexterity’cluster dual-purpose capabilities for explo-ration and exploitation or the role of integrative

capabilities (Helfat and Winter 2011; Teece 2007)

build on the same conceptual foundation. Finally, the

‘microfoundations and acquisitions’ cluster incorpo-

rates managerial behaviour or the explicit microfoun-

dations of dynamic capabilities, which are also

mentioned in qualitative reviews (Ambrosini and

Bowman 2009; Barreto 2010; Easterby-Smith et al .

2009; Teece 2007).

By contrast, qualitative reviews highlight topics

that empirical and theoretical research does not

investigate sufficiently. Such topics are the interplay between dynamic and operational capabilities, the

different constitution of dynamic capabilities (rou-

tines vs. simple rules) and the impact of market

dynamism on the characteristics of dynamic capa-

bilities. Nevertheless, more conceptual work is

necessary to release the full potential of the DCV

in order to deepen the understanding within the

subfields of DCV research and to establish how

the diverse strands of DCV research interrelate

respectively.

Limitations

One drawback of bibliometric methods in general is

that their quantitative approach does not capture in

what context and with what intention authors refer

to other works. Thus, bibliometrics cannot account

comprehensively for the complex nature of citing

behaviour. As empirical research shows, references

may be motivated by self-legitimization strategies

and micro-politics, although these motives turn out

to be less important than reviewing earlier works,

recognizing priority and substantiating assumptions

(for an overview, see Bornmann and Daniel 2008).

Another shortcoming of bibliographic coupling is the

overweighting of publications with comparatively

long reference lists. The more documents a bibliog-

raphy contains, the more likely are intersections with

the reference lists of other publications. Works with

extensive bibliographies tend, therefore, to have a

higher network centrality than those with shorter bib-

liographies. Nevertheless, the length of a reference

list may depend on author preferences as well as on

journal standards. A further limitation is that the

resolution of the applied method depends on the

thresholds defined in the course of data reduction and

factor extraction. In the case of this study, although

we broadly varied the thresholds without observing

significant changes in the network structures, the

final solutions depended partly on technical deci-sions that we, as the researchers, had to make. In

addition to the general limitations of bibliometrics,

which also apply to this study, we should note that the

results overstate the distinctiveness of the extracted

clusters because, in assigning documents to factors,

only the main loadings were considered, while

cross-loadings, which signify interrelations between

different streams of research, were not taken into

account.

Directions for future research

On the basis of this analysis of the existing literature

on the dynamic capability view, we divided the

relevant research into six streams: ‘strategic learning

and change’, ‘technological innovation and adapta-

tion’, ‘ambidexterity’, ‘microfoundations and acqui-

sitions’, ‘vertical scope’ and ‘alliances’. The findings

suggest that the existing research is not exhaustive.

On the contrary, they indicate that more research is

necessary in each of those subfields to explore in

depth certain important aspects; for instance, in the

‘strategic learning and change’ cluster, further research can distinguish between top-management

decisions with regard to change and subsequent

reconfiguration activities; in the ‘technological inno-

vation and adaptation’ cluster, it can help differenti-

ate between operational innovation capabilities and

innovation capabilities that facilitate the fracturing of

technological trajectories; finally, in the ‘ambidexter-

ity’ cluster, it can reveal concrete mechanisms that

help to achieve a balance between exploration and

exploitation and thus to foster a dynamic adaptation

to novel situations.

‘To avoid the problems of tautology [. . .], for

dynamic capabilities to be a useful construct, it must

be feasible to identify discrete processes inside the

firm that can be unambiguously causally linked to

resource creation’ (Ambrosini and Bowman 2009, p.

44). Although there are signs of progress in this field

as current papers, e.g. by Helfat and Winter (2011)

and Barreto (2010), provide some new conceptual

insights on the microfoundations of dynamic capa-

bilities and on their impact in reconfiguring the



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


firm’s resource base, our results do not indicate that

in this central field of dynamic capabilities research a

conceptual basis is currently being developed that

would be strong enough to meet the expectations of

both scientific research and practice.

In this analysis, the ‘microfoundations and acqui-

sition’ cluster has a low level of coherence, whichindicates that the cluster is still at an early stage of

development. In this regard, therefore, the call by

Arend and Bromiley (2009, p. 86) for a stronger

foundation of DCV concepts in organization theory

is justified. A stronger foundation, they argue, would

stabilize this perspective and ensure that empirical

studies are assessed and compared in a structured

manner. Streamlining research in this field would

lead to a better understanding of the microfounda-

tions of dynamic capabilities. It would also help elu-

cidate the field’s central theoretical concept, and thus

consolidate the field’s identity, by drawing on (a) theinteraction between top-management cognition, (b)

strategic decision-making and (c) routines and prac-

tices for reconfiguring the firm’s resource base.

Moreover, referential definitions and operationaliza-

tions of the construct could provide a common

ground for quantitative studies – downstream

research. Nevertheless, upstream research is more

important in the current state of the DCV’s develop-

ment; in particular, qualitative research and case

studies that elucidate the micro-mechanisms of rou-

tines, practices or decision-making patterns and thus

advance the theoretical understanding of dynamiccapabilities. So far, the theoretical basis of the DCV

has been advanced mainly through conceptual papers

(e.g. Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Teece et al . 1997;

Zollo and Winter 2002), not through empirical

research. This may explain why only a few abstract

recommendations for management practice can be

traced in the available literature.

More research on the micro-level of analysis is

also necessary to reveal in what concrete ways

dynamic capabilities help to reconfigure the firm’s

resource base. Arend and Bromiley (2009) claim that

the topic of change management has yet to be inte-

grated into research on dynamic capabilities. The

existing literature shows that managing change is

difficult (Brown and Eisenhardt 1997; Edmondson

et al . 2001) and fraught with resistance to change at

the individual, group and organizational level (Ford

et al . 2008; Piderit 2000). Although dynamic capa-

bilities are perceived as the firm’s capacity to recon-

figure its resource base, advanced research on the

management of change has not yet been integrated

into the existing literature. Future studies could shed

more light on the topic of change by building a con-

ceptual bridge between the DCV and research in the

field of change management (e.g. Schreyögg and

Sydow 2010; Vergne and Durand 2011). They should

also leverage any insights from the field of change

management in order to investigate in detail thecomplex interaction between dynamic capabilities

and operative routines in the process of reconfigura-

tion. The topic of resistance to change also needs to

be addressed in DCV research, both on the level of

concepts and on that of practice.

Because the DCV perspective has its origins in

organization theory (Di Stefano et al . 2010), most

publications focus on strategic and organizational

aspects of firm development. From a managerial

standpoint, two important topics are missing from

the research agenda of the DCV literature: leadership

and human resource management. Both topics areclosely related to organizational reconfiguration.

They are also key topics in the discussion of how the

firm can put its capabilities into action and govern

learning and change processes strategically.

Reference

Acedo, F.J., Barroso, C. and Galan, J.L. (2006). The

resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends.

Strategic Management Journal , 27, pp. 621–636.

Adner, R. and Helfat, C.E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management

Journal , 24, pp. 1011–1025.

Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come

from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Man-

agement Journal , 25, pp. 887–907.

Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic

capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic

management? International Journal of Management

Reviews, 11, pp. 29–49.

Anand, J., Oriani, R. and Vassolo, R.S. (2010). Alliance

activity as a dynamic capability in the face of a discon-

tinuous technological change. Organization Science, 21,

pp. 1213–1232.

Arend, R.J. (2004). The definition of strategic liabilities, and

their impact on firm performance. Journal of Manage-

ment Studies, 41, pp. 1003–1027.

Arend, R.J. and Bromiley, P. (2009). Assessing the dynamic

capabilities view: spare change, everyone? Strategic

Organization, 7, pp. 75–90.

Armstrong, C.E. and Shimizu, K. (2007). A review of

approaches to empirical research on the resource-based

view of the firm. Journal of Management , 33, pp. 959–

986.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


Barkema, H.G. and Schijven, M. (2008). Toward unlocking

the full potential of acquisitions: the role of organizational

restructuring. Academy of Management Journal , 51,

pp. 696–722.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive

advantage. Journal of Management , 17, pp. 99–120.

Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: a review of past

research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Man-

agement , 36, pp. 256–280.

Benner, M.J. (2007). The incumbent discount: stock market

categories and response to radical technological change.

Academy of Management Review, 32, pp. 703–720.

Benner, M.J. (2009). Dynamic or static capabilities? Process

management practices and response to technological

change. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 26,

pp. 473–486.

Benner, M.J. (2010). Securities analysts and incumbent

response to radical technological change: evidence from

digital photography and internet telephony. Organization

Science, 21, pp. 42–62.

Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation,

exploration, and process management: the productivity

dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28,

pp. 238–256.

Bock, R.D. and Husain, S.Z. (1950). An adaption of Holz-

inger’s B-coefficients for the analysis of sociometric data.

Sociometry, 13, pp. 146–153.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002).

Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Ana-

lysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation

counts measure? A review of studies on citing behaviour.

Journal of Documentation, 64, pp. 45–80.

Bowman, C. and Collier, N. (2006). A contingency approach

to resource-creation processes. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 8, pp. 191–211.

Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997). The art of con-

tinuous change: linking complexity theory and time-

paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 1–34.

Capron, L. and Mitchell, W. (2009). Selection capability:

how capability gaps and internal social frictions affect

internal and external strategic renewal. Organization

Science, 20, pp. 294–312.

Cattani, G. (2005). Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and

technological performance: a study on the evolution of fiber optics, 1970–1995. Organization Science, 16, pp.

563–580.

Cattani, G. (2006). Technological pre-adaptation, speciation,

and emergence of new technologies: how Corning

invented and developed fiber optics. Industrial and Cor-

porate Change, 15, pp. 285–318.

Cattani, G. (2008). Leveraging in-house R&D competencies

for a new market: how Corning pioneered fibre optics.

International Journal of Technology Management , 44, pp.

28–52.

Clougherty, J.A. and Moliterno, T.P. (2010). Empirically

eliciting complementarities in capabilities: integrating

quasi-experimental and panel data methodologies. Strate-

gic Organization, 8, pp. 107–131.

Coff, R.W. (2010). The coevolution of rent appropriation

and capability development. Strategic Management

Journal , 31, pp. 711–733.

Colbert, B.A. (2004). The complex resource-based view:

implications for theory and practice in strategic human

resource management. Academy of Management Review,

29, pp. 341–358.

Conner, K.R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-

based theory and 5 schools of thought within industrial-

organization economics – do we have a new theory of the

firm? Journal of Management , 17, pp. 121–154.

Cornelius, B., Landstrom, H. and Persson, O. (2006). Entre-

preneurial studies: the dynamic research front of a devel-

oping social science. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 30, pp. 375–398.

Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of

the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

De Solla Price, D.J. (1965). The science of science. In Platt,

J.R. (ed.), New Views on the Nature of Man. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, pp. 47–70.

De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (2003). Strategic planning and

firms’ competencies – traditional approaches and new

perspectives. International Journal of Operations & Pro-

duction Management , 23, pp. 947–976.

Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M. and Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic

capabilities deconstructed: a bibliographic investigation

into the origins, development, and future directions of the

research domain. Industrial & Corporate Change, 19, pp.

1187–1204.

Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M.A. and Peteraf, M.A. (2009).

Dynamic capabilities: current debates and future

directions. British Journal of Management , 20, pp.

S1–S8.

Edmondson, A.C., Bohmer, R.M. and Pisano, G.P. (2001).

Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology

implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 46, pp. 685–716.

Eggers, J.P. and Kaplan, S. (2009). Cognition and renewal:

comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent

adaptation to technical change. Organization Science, 20,

pp. 461–477.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal ,

21, pp. 1105–1121.

Eisenhardt, K.M., Furr, N.R. and Bingham, C.B. (2010).

Microfoundations of performance: balancing efficiency

and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization

Science, 21, pp. 1263–1273.

Escrig-Tena, A.B. and Bou-Llusar, J.C. (2005). A model for

evaluating organizational competencies: an application in

the context of a quality management initiative. Decision

Sciences, 36, pp. 221–257.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: stability and change as

a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, pp. 202–

225.

Felin, T. and Foss, N.J. (2009). Organizational routines and

capabilities: historical drift and a course-correction

toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Man-

agement , 25, pp. 157–167.

Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance

to change: the rest of the story. Academy of Management

Review, 33, pp. 362–377.

Furrer, O., Thomas, H. and Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The

structure and evolution of the strategic management field:

a content analysis of 26 years of strategic management

research. International Journal of Management Reviews,

10, pp. 1–23.

Garcia-Muina, F.E., Pelechano-Barahona, E. and Navas-

Lopez, J.E. (2010). Knowledge management decisions

and the innovative capacity of enterprises: the role of

complexity. Interciencia, 35, pp. 271–278.

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science – new

dimension in documentation through association of ideas.

Science, 122, pp. 108–111.

Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: rethinking the

microfoundations of capabilities’development. Organiza-

tion Science, 16, pp. 599–617.

Gilbert, C.G. (2006). Change in the presence of residual fit:

can competing frames coexist? Organization Science, 17,

pp. 150–167.

Gottschalg, O. and Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and

competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review,

32, pp. 418–437.

Gregoire, D.A., Noel, M.X., Dery, R. and Bechard, J.P.

(2006). Is there conceptual convergence in entrepreneur-

ship research? A co-citation analysis of Frontiers of Entre-

preneurship Research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 30, pp. 333–373.

Heimeriks, K.H. and Duysters, G. (2007). Alliance capabil-

ity as a mediator between experience and alliance per-

formance: an empirical investigation into the alliance

capability development process. Journal of Management

Studies, 44, pp. 25–49.

Helfat, C.E. (1997). Know-how and asset complemen-

tarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case

of R&D. Strategic Management Journal , 18, pp. 339–

360.

Helfat, C.E. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction to thespecial issue: the evolution of firm capabilities. Strategic

Management Journal , 21, pp. 955–959.

Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2003). The dynamic

resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Man-


Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2009). Understanding

dynamic capabilities: progress along a developmental

path. Strategic Organization, 7, pp. 91–102.

Helfat, C.E. and Winter, S.G. (2011). Untangling dynamic

and operational capabilities: strategy for the (n)ever-

changing world. Strategic Management Journal , 32, pp.

1243–1250.

Helfat, C.E. et al . (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Under-

standing Strategic Change in Organizations. Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Hoang, H. and Rothaermel, F.T. (2010). Leveraging internal

and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and

R&D project performance. Strategic Management

Journal , 31, pp. 734–758.

Holcomb, T.R. and Hitt, M.A. (2007). Toward a model of

strategic outsourcing. Journal of Operations Manage-

ment , 25, pp. 464–481.

Hulland, J., Wade, M.R. and Antia, K.D. (2007). The impact

of capabilities and prior investments on online channel

commitment and performance. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 23, pp. 109–142.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Sirmon, D.G. (2003). A

model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and

its dimensions. Journal of Management , 29, pp. 963–

989.

Isobe, T., Makino, S. and Montgomery, D.B. (2008). Tech-

nological capabilities and firm performance: the case of

small manufacturing firms in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal

of Management , 25, pp. 413–428.

Jacobides, M.G. (2008). How capability differences, trans-

action costs, and learning curves interact to shape vertical

scope. Organization Science, 19, pp. 306–326.

Jacobides, M.G. and Hitt, L.M. (2005). Losing sight of the

forest for the trees? Productive capabilities and gains from

trade as drivers of vertical scope. Strategic Management

Journal , 26, pp. 1209–1227.

Jacobides, M.G. and Winter, S.G. (2005). The co-evolution

of capabilities and transaction costs: explaining the insti-

tutional structure of production. Strategic Management

Journal , 26, pp. 395–413.

Jansen, J.J.P., Tempelaar, M.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J. and

Volberda, H.W. (2009). Structural differentiation and

ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mecha-

nisms. Organization Science, 20, pp. 797–811.

Jarneving, B. (2005). A comparison of two bibliometric

methods for mapping of the research front. Scientomet-

rics, 65, pp. 245–263.

Jarratt, D. (2008). Testing a theoretically constructed rela-

tionship management capability. European Journal of

Marketing , 42, pp. 1106–1132.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1998). An informationcompany in Mexico: extending the resource-based view

of the firm to a developing country context. Information

Systems Research, 9, pp. 342–361.

Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: recursiveness,

adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organization Studies,

25, pp. 529–560.

Kale, P. and Singh, H. (2007). Building firm capabilities

through learning: the role of the alliance learning process

in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Stra-

tegic Management Journal , 28, pp. 981–1000.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2006). Alli-

ance orientation: conceptualization, measurement, and

impact on market performance. Journal of theAcademy of

Marketing Science, 34, pp. 324–340.

Kang, S.C. and Snell, S.A. (2009). Intellectual capital archi-

tectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for

human resource management. Journal of Management

Studies, 46, pp. 65–92.

Kaplan, S. (2008). Cognition, capabilities, and incentives:

assessing firm response to the fiber-optic revolution.

Academy of Management Journal , 51, pp. 672–695.

Keil, T. (2004). Building external corporate venturing

capability. Journal of Management Studies, 41, pp. 799–

825.

Keil, T., Autio, E. and George, G. (2008). Corporate venture

capital, disembodied experimentation and capability

development. Journal of Management Studies, 45, pp.

1475–1505.

Kessler, M.M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between sci-

entific papers. American Documentation, 14, pp. 10–25.

Kim, J. and Mahoney, J.T. (2010). A strategic theory of the

firm as a nexus of incomplete contracts: a property rights

approach. Journal of Management , 36, pp. 806–826.

King, A.W. (2007). Disentangling interfirm and intrafirm

causal ambiguity: a conceptual model of causal ambiguity

and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Man-

agement Review, 32, pp. 156–178.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,

combinative capabilities, and the replication of technol-

ogy. Organization Science, 3, pp. 383–397.

Kyriakopoulos, K. and Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in

marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the

overlooked role of market orientation. International

Journal of Research in Marketing , 21, pp. 219–240.

Lavie, D. (2006a). The competitive advantage of intercon-

nected firms: an extension of the resource-based view.

Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 638–658.

Lavie, D. (2006b). Capability reconfiguration: an analysis of

incumbent responses to technological change. Academy

of Management Review, 31, pp. 153–174.

Lavie, D., Stettner, U. and Tushman, M.L. (2010). Explora-

tion and exploitation within and across organizations.

Academy of Management Annals, 4, pp. 109–155.

Lee, P.Y., Lin, H.T., Chen, H.H. and Shyr, Y.H. (2011).

Dynamic capabilities exploitation of market and hierar-

chy governance structures: an empirical comparison of Taiwan and South Korea. Journal of World Business, 46,

pp. 359–370.

Lewin, A.Y., Massini, S. and Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoun-

dations of internal and external absorptive capacity rou-

tines. Organization Science, 22, pp. 81–98.

Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Relative capacity: retaining know-

ledge outside a firm’s boundaries. Journal of Engineering

and Technology Management , 25, pp. 200–212.

Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006).

Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-

sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team

behavioral integration. Journal of Management , 32, pp.

646–672.

Luzon, M.D.M. and Pasola, J.V. (2011). Ambidexterity and

total quality management: towards a research agenda.

Management Decision, 49, pp. 927–947.

Ma, Z.Z., Lee, Y. and Yu, K.H. (2008). Ten years of conflict

management studies: themes, concepts and relationships.

International Journal of Conflict Management , 19, pp.

234–248.

Madhok, A. (2002). Reassessing the fundamentals and

beyond: Ronald Coase, the transaction cost and resource-

based theories of the firm and the institutional structure of

production. Strategic Management Journal , 23, pp. 535–

550.

Martin, J.A. (2010). Dynamic managerial capabilities and

the multibusiness team: the role of episodic teams in

executive leadership groups. Organization Science, 22,

pp. 118–140.

Martin, J.A. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2004). Coping with

decline in dynamic markets: corporate entrepreneurship

and the recombinative organizational form. In Baum,

J.A.C. and McGahan, A.M. (eds), Advances in Strategic

Management: A Research Annual . New York: JAI–

Elsevier Science pp. 357–382.

Mathews, J.A. (2003). Strategizing by firms in the presence

of markets for resources. Industrial and Corporate

Change, 12, pp. 1157–1193.

McCain, K.W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual

space – a technical overview. Journal of the American

Society for Information Science, 41, pp. 433–443.

McGee, J. and Thomas, H. (2007). Knowledge as a lens on

the jigsaw puzzle of strategy – reflections and conjectures

on the contribution of a knowledge-based view to analytic

models of strategic management. Management Decision,

45, pp. 539–563.

McMillan, G.S. (2008). Mapping the invisible colleges of

R&D management. R&D Management , 38, pp. 69–83.

Melville, N., Kraemer, K. and Gurbaxani, V. (2004).

Review: information technology and organizational per-

formance: an integrative model of IT business value. MIS

Quarterly, 28, pp. 283–322.

Morgan, N.A., Zou, S.M., Vorhies, D.W. and Katsikeas, C.S.

(2003). Experiential and informational knowledge, archi-

tectural marketing capabilities, and the adaptive perform-

ance of export ventures: a cross-national study. DecisionSciences, 34, pp. 287–321.

Moustaghfir, K. (2009). How knowledge assets lead to a

sustainable competitive advantage: are organizational

capabilities a missing link? Knowledge Management

Research & Practice, 7, pp. 339–355.

Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance meas-

urement research – developments in the last decade and a

research agenda for the next. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management , 25, pp. 1264–

1277.



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary

Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. Press.

Nerkar, A. and Roberts, P.W. (2004). Technological and

product-market experience and the success of new

product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry.


Nerur, S.P., Rasheed, A.A. and Natarajan, V. (2008). The

intellectual structure of the strategic management field: an

author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management

Journal , 29, pp. 319–336.

Newbert, S.L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-

based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for

future research. Strategic Management Journal , 28, pp.

121–146.

Newbert, S.L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advan-

tage, and performance: a conceptual-level empirical

investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Stra-

tegic Management Journal , 29, pp. 745–768.

Newbert, S.L., Gopalakrishnan, S. and Kirchhoff, B.A.

(2008). Looking beyond resources: exploring the impor-

tance of entrepreneurship to firm-level competitive advan-

tage in technologically intensive industries. Technovation,

28, pp. 6–19.

O’Connor, G.C. (2008). Major innovation as a dynamic

capability: a systems approach. Journal of Product Inno-

vation Management , 25, pp. 313–330.

O’Connor, G.C. and Demartino, R. (2006). Organizing for

radical innovation: an exploratory study of the structural

aspects of RI management systems in large established

firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 23,

pp. 475–497.

O’Connor, G.C., Paulson, A.S. and Demartino, R. (2008).

Organisational approaches to building a radical innova-

tion dynamic capability. International Journal of Technol-

ogy Management , 44, pp. 179–204.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008). Ambidexterity as

a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma.

In Staw, B.M. and Brief, A.P. (eds), Research in Organ-

izational Behavior . Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 185–

206.

Parmigiani, A. (2007). Why do firms both make and buy?

An investigation of concurrent sourcing. Strategic Man-


Pavlou, P.A. and El Sawy, O.A. (2011). Understanding the

elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sci-ences, 42, pp. 239–273.

Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive

advantage – a resource-based view. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal , 14, pp. 179–191.

Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing

ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward

an organizational change. Academy of Management

Review, 25, pp. 783–794.

Pilkington, A. and Chai, K.H. (2008). Research themes,

concepts and relationships – a study of International

Journal of Service Industry Management (1990–2005).

International Journal of Service Industry Management ,

19, pp. 83–110.

Pilkington, A. and Fitzgerald, R. (2006). Operations man-

agement themes, concepts and relationships: a forward

retrospective of IJOPM. International Journal of Opera-

tions & Production Management , 26, pp. 1255–1275.

Pilkington, A. and Meredith, J. (2009). The evolution of the

intellectual structure of operations management – 1980–

2006: a citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Opera-

tions Management , 27, pp. 185–202.

Ployhart, R.E. and Moliterno, T.P. (2011). Emergence of the

human capital resource: a multilevel model. Academy of

Management Review, 36, pp. 127–150.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliomet-

rics. Journal of Documentation, 25, pp. 348–349.

Puranam, P. and Srikanth, K. (2007). What they know vs.

what they do: how acquirers leverage technology acqui-

sitions. Strategic Management Journal , 28, pp. 805–825.

Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambi-

dexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators.

Journal of Management , 34, pp. 375–409.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M.L.

(2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploita-

tion and exploration for sustained performance. Organ-

ization Science, 20, pp. 685–695.

Ramos-Rodríguez, A.R. and Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004).

Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic manage-

ment research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Man-

agement Journal , 1980–2000. Strategic Management

Journal , 25, pp. 981–1004.

Regner, P. and Zander, U. (2011). Knowledge and strategy

creation in multinational companies. Social-identity

frames and temporary tension in knowledge combination.

Management International Review, 51, pp. 821–850.

Rothaermel, F.T. and Alexandre, M.T. (2009). Ambidexter-

ity in technology sourcing: the moderating role of absorp-

tive capacity. Organization Science, 20, pp. 759–780.

Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L. (2006). Alliance type,

alliance experience and alliance management capability

in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Ventur-

ing , 21, pp. 429–460.

Salvato, C. and Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities:

multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management , 37, pp. 468–490.

Santos, F.A. and Eisenhardt, K.A. (2005). Organizational

boundaries and theories of organization. Organization

Science, 16, pp. 491–508.

Schildt, H.A., Zahra, S.A. and Sillanpaa, A. (2006). Schol-

arly communities in entrepreneurship research: a

co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-

tice, 30, pp. 399–415.

Schilke, O. and Goerzen, A. (2010). Alliance management

capability: an investigation of the construct and its



7/25/2019 Vogel 2012


measurement. Journal of Management , 36, pp. 1192–

1219.

Schreyögg, G. and Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic

can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-

process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Man-


Schreyögg, G. and Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluid-

ity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization

Science, 21, pp. 1251–1262.

Small, H.C. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a

new measure of the relationship between two documents.

Journal of the American Society of Information Science,

24, pp. 265–269.

Soto-Acosta, P. and Meroño-Cerdan, A.L. (2008). Analyz-

ing e-business value creation from a resource-based

perspective. International Journal of Information

Management , 28, pp. 49–60.

Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the

nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise

performance. Strategic Management Journal , 28, pp.

1319–1350.

Teece, D.J. (2009). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic

Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1990). Firm capabili-

ties, resources and the concept of strategy. Economic

Analysis and Policy Working Paper, University of

California.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capa-

bilities and strategic management. Strategic Management

Journal , 18, pp. 509–533.

Tushman, M., Smith, W.K., Wood, R.C., Westerman, G. and

O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational designs and innova-

tion streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, pp.

1331–1366.

Tzabbar, D., Aharonson, B.S., Amburgey, T.L. and

Al-Laham, A. (2008). When is the whole bigger than

the sum of its parts? Bundling knowledge stocks for

innovative success. Strategic Organization, 6, pp. 375–

406.

Uhlenbruck, K., Meyer, K.E. and Hitt, M.A. (2003). Organ-

izational transformation in transition economies:

resource-based and organizational learning perspectives.

Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 257–282.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Descriptive versus evaluative bib-

liometrics. Monitoring and assessing of national R&Dsystems. In Moed, H., Glänzel, W. and Schmoch, U. (eds),

Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology

Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in

Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishing, pp. 373–388.

Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M. and Zimmermann,

E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science

and technology – I: the multiple uses of bibliometric indi-

cators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4,

p. 179–211.

Vergne, J.-P. and Durand, R. (2011). The path of most per-

sistence: an evolutionary perspective on path dependence

and dynamic capabilities. Organization Studies, 32, pp.

365–382.

Volberda, H.W., Foss, N.J. and Lyles, M.A. (2010). Absorb-

ing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its

potential in the organization field. Organization Science,

21, pp. 931–951.

Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004). Review: the resource-

based view and information systems research: review,

extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quar-

terly, 28, pp. 107–142.

Walter, A., Auer, M. and Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of

network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on

university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Ven-

turing , 21, pp. 541–567.

Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities:

a review and research agenda. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 9, pp. 31–51.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm.


White, H.D. and Griffith, B.C. (1981). Author cocitation – a

literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science, 32, pp. 163–

171.

Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Davidsson, P. (2006). Entre-

preneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model

and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43,

pp. 917–955.

Zander, I. and Zander, U. (2005). The inside track: on the

important (but neglected) role of customers in the

resource-based view of strategy and firm growth. Journal

of Management Studies, 42, pp. 1519–1548.

Zollo, M. (2009). Superstitious learning with rare strategic

decisions: theory and evidence from corporate acquisi-

tions. Organization Science, 20, pp. 894–908.

Zollo, M. and Reuer, J.J. (2010). Experience spillovers

across corporate development activities. Organization

Science, 21, pp. 1195–1212.

Zollo, M. and Singh, H. (2004). Deliberate learning in cor-

porate acquisitions: post-acquisition strategies and inte-gration capability in US bank mergers. Strategic

Management Journal , 25, pp. 1233–1256.

Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate learning and

the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization

Science, 13, pp. 339–351.
