Theory of Dynamic Capabilities

Theory of Dynamic Capabilities

The theory of dynamic capabilities (DCT) are considered meta-abilities RBV (Okoth2013) in comparison with the ordinary or operational capabilities (Winter, 2003[1]; Crook et al2008), The cornerstone cornerstone management strategy of the company, competitiveness and a driver's adaptability and innovation (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000 Narayannan et al., 2009). term dynamic capabilities (DC) is defined as the ability and need firms to recognize a multitude of variables, quickly respond to changes in the environment and so affect the firm superior performance. Barreto (2010[2]) define DC as a potential company to systematically solve problems due to their tendency to experience opportunities and threats, in order to make timely and market-oriented decision on changes to its resource base (str. 271). Teece et al. ( 1997[3]) defines the dynamic ability as “ the ability of the company to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies (jurisdiction) addressed to rapidly changing environments “ (p. 516). The concept of dynamic capabilities aims to improve productivity and more efficiently generate new strategies (Narayannan et al., 2009). Thus, the theory of dynamic capabilities is based on the ability of company valuations, adaptation, adaptation and growth (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003), Construction, reconfiguration (deliberately create, expand or modify) resource base of the company (Helfat et al., 2007, p. 4) inside and outside of company property (Bruni and Verona 2009[4]; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000[5]; Teece 2007[6]). Represents primarily the procedures of company-based learning activities through the development and use of knowledge involved in them and connected with them. Some dynamic capabilities integrate resources (product development, strategic decision-making) Others focus on the reconfiguration of resources within the firm and other dynamic capabilities related to obtaining and freeing resources (routines to create knowledge, alliances, procurement and output routines ). The theory provides a systematic structured view and points out that successful players can limit the variables, but have in common with others constantly look for the best results within their current and future business strategies (McMillan, 2002). Companies should possesses dynamic skills and capacity to adapt to changing business conditions with the aim to stay ahead competitive and take a leading position in the market. Managers of higher order are aimed at continuous strategic learning, actively seeking ways to improve the firm business models and innovation of new models, creating competitive advantage and sustainable company performance[7].

Doz and Kosonen (2010[8]) define BM (1) objectively as a set of structured and interdependent operational relationship between the company and its customers, suppliers, partner, partners and other stakeholders, and between its internal units and departments, (2) subjective as mechanisms of the company relating to the environment. Empirical research based on the use of case studies, recomend Business Model (BM) to explicitly be adapted to an environment organization, strategies, both internal structure and system (Govindarajan & Gupta, 1985[9]; Govindarajan, 1982), To support the business strategy that can lead to competitive advantage, superior performance and high organizational impact (Dent, 1990[10]; Samson et al., 1991[11]; Simons, 1987a[12]1990[13]; Langfield-Smith 1997[14]). GM is the strategic positioning of the company in the market (Yip 2004) and defines how firm adoption processes principles and practices of stakeholders, creates value and better financial results than its competitors (Donaldson & Lee1995, P. 77). Using the strategy process of developing models and frameworks, were taken to initial analysis of the formation of future models DMBI Each firm explicitly or implicitly has a business model in these forms is not guaranteed the sustainability of competitive advantage (Chesbrough 2010; Teece 2010). according to Porter (1985[15][16]), Company with a clear strategy outweigh the company without a strategy. Superior ability and willingness to find and innovate new business models has been identified as a strategic priority and sustainable development key to sustainable competitive advantage in the market (MAEI, 2011; [17]Hamel and Välikangas 2003[18]; Chesbrough 2007[19]), Where the company changes over time, through the creation of new value and increase profitability.

Table 2. xxx

In order to provide superior and sustainable competitive advantage (Johnson et al., 2008[20]) BM is in this context developed through four interconnection elements: offer customers (CVP) which vary from firm competition, formula that creates superior profit model of cost management, and key processes of creating zejedničkih value through available resources. Considering this theoretical basis, we develop analytical archetype for business model innovation (BMI) based on dynamic capabilities variables (DCV). DBMI, assumes that the innovative business model goes beyond the strategic planning and decision making and represents a systematic strategic activity that is critical to the ability of the company to sort, evaluate, refines and reformat their resources and capabilities. The innovation of the business model on the one hand makes the competition irrelevant (Kim and Mauborgne 2004[21]) And on the other hand, through a radical change creates a whole new suite of value and wealth of customers (Kim and Mauborgne 1997. 2004). In this sense, innovators in the business model are technically strategic innovators who revolution architecture of value chains (Govindarajan and Gupta 2001[22]) different ways of developing new products to new models of delivery and Marketing (Anderson and Markides 2007). Using the strategy process of developing models and frameworks, such as Porter model of five powers, Boston Consultancy Group (BCG) Matrix, General Electric (GE) / McKinsey matrix Ansoff Matrix Analysis Advantages Disadvantages Opportunity Threat (SWOT) and McCarthy marketing mix model. Configured network value, consisting of strategic opportunities for continuous maintenance and re-finding goals, should satisfy the interests of various stakeholders. (CEO[23])

some research follow the positivist approach. assuming that the Strategy is the result of rational choice. Mintzberg (1987) and Quinn (1996[24]) highlight ambiguous and messy nature of strategic decisions and need to design systems that allow flexibility and encourage creativity in strategic planners. The strategy is being developed and resides in the heads of key managers. Using normative model of strategic decision-making, Schwenck (1984[25]) illustrated how cognitive cases can restrict rational procedures within each stage model. This cognitive opinion on the strategic process it is difficult to adopt in research. But the mss may be used in the Annexes of the study cases where it can recognize subjective perception strategy.

Empirical research based on the use of case studies, focus on specific aspects of MCS and their relationship to the strategy. MCS provides a means for obtaining the cooperation between the collectives of individuals or organizational units that can be shared only partially matched the objectives and direction of these efforts to a given set of organizational goals (Ouchi, 1979[26]; Flamholtz, 1983[27]; Langfield-Smith, 2006. [28]). formal control are visible, objective components that include rules, standard operating procedures and systems of budgeting and therefore The simplest are for research.

---

[1] S. Winter, Understanding dynamic capabilities, Strategic Management Journal, 2003, 24, pp. 991-995.

[2] arrêt, Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda for the Future, Journal of Management, 2010; 36; p.256-280

[3] DJ Teece, G. Pisano and A. Shuen, 'Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management', Strategic Management Journal, 199 718, pp. 509-533

[4] . S., and G. Bruni1, Verona, Dynamic Marketing Capabilities in Science-based Firms: An Exploratory

Investigation of the Pharmaceutical Industry, the British Journal of Management, 2009, Vol. 20, S101-S117

[5] K. M, Eisenhardt ,. and JA Martin, Dynamic capabilities: what are they ?, Strategic Management Journal 2000.21, pp. 1105-1121.

[6] .J., Teece, Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28, pp 1319-1350.

[7] MAEI, Arash. "Dynamic business model innovation: an analytical archetype." International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering (Pags. 165-171). Singapore: IACSIT Press. 2011.

[8] YL Doz, and M., Kosonen, Embedding Strategic Agility A Leadership Agenda for Accelerating Business Model Renewal, Long Range Planning, 2010, 43, pp.370-382

[9] Govindarajan, Vijay, and Anil K. Gupta. "Linking control systems to business unit strategy: impact on performance." Accounting, Organizations and Society 10.1 (1985): 51-66.

[10] Dent, Jeremy F. "Accounting and organizational cultures: a field study of the emergence of a new organizational reality." Accounting, Organizations and Society 16.8 (1991): 705-732.

[11] Samson, Daniel A., Kim Langfield-Smith, and Patricia McBride. "The alignment of management accounting with manufacturing priorities: a strategic perspective." Australian Accounting Review 1.1 (1991): 29-40.

[12] Simons, Robert. "Accounting control systems and business strategy: an empirical analysis." Accounting, Organizations and Society 12.4 (1987): 357-374.

[13] Simons, Robert. "The role of management control systems and creating competitive advantage: New Perspectives." Accounting, organizations and society 15.1-2 (1990): 127-143.

[14] Langfield-Smith, Kim. "Management control systems and strategy: a critical review." Accounting, Organizations and Society 22.2 (1997): 207-232.

[15] Porter, Michael E. "Competitive Advantage of Free Press." New York (1985).

[16] Porter, ME (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free Press: New York

[17] Najmaei, Arash. "Dynamic business model innovation: an analytical archetype." International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering (págs. 165-171). Singapore: IACSIT Press. 2011.

[18] Gary. Hamel and L. Välikangas, The Quest for Resilience, Harvard Business Review, 2003,September, pp.Vol. 81 Issue 9, p52-63.

[19] , Chesbrough, Business Model Innovation: It’s Not Just About Technology Anymore, Strategy & Leadership, 2007,Vol. 35 ,No. 6, pp. 12-17

[20] M., Johnson, C. Christensen And H., Kagermann, Reinventing Your Business Model, Harvard Business Review 2008,86,12, pp.50-59

[21] W. C.,Kim, and R.A. Mauborgne, Blue Ocean Strategy,Harvard Business Review, 2004, October.

[22] V., Govindarajan and A. K., Gupta, Strategic innovation: a conceptual road map, Business Horizons, 2001,Volume 44, Issue 4, July-August, Pages 3-12

[23] Najmaei, Arash. "Dynamic business model innovation: an analytical archetype." International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering (págs. 165-171). Singapore: IACSIT Press. 2011.

[24] Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S., (1996), “Making the most of the best”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 71–80.

[25] Schwenk, Charles R. "Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision‐making." Strategic management journal 5.2 (1984): 111-128.

[26] Ouchi, W. G., (1977), “The Relationship between Organisational Structures and

Organisational Control”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 95-112.

[27] Flamholtz, E. G., Das, T. K., & Tsui, A., (1985), “Toward an Integrative Framework of Organisational Control”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, pp. 35-50.

[28] Langfield-Smith, Kim. "11 Understanding management control systems and strategy." Contemporary issues in management accounting (2006): 243.