Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

Explaining the variation in the degree of success of business organizations by reference to different degrees and qualities of organizational knowledge and competence has been a major focus of recent theorizing in both strategic management and organizational theory. Concepts and labels coined to characterize the phenomenon abound. From pioneering efforts, such as Selznick's (1957) “distinctive competence,” to the more recent and refined notions of organizational routines ( Nelson and Winter, 1982 ), absorptive capacity ( Cohen and Levinthal, 1990 ), architectural knowledge ( Henderson and Clark, 1990 ), combinative capabilities ( Kogut and Zander, 1992 ), and, finally, dynamic capabilities ( Teece et al., 1997 ) there are decades of investment in sorting out the traits and the boundaries of the phenomena. Recent contributions ( Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000 ; Dosi et al., 2000 ) aim at clarifying distinctions among the various constructs. As the field progresses in the characterization of the phenomena, however, the need for a better understanding of the origins of capabilities becomes increasingly apparent. What ultimately accounts for the fact that one organization exhibits “competence” in some area, while another does not? And how do we explain the growth and decay of that particular competence, other than the simple repetition, or lack thereof, of decisions and behavior? This ... log in or subscribe to read full text