Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Why Firms Win

Nächste SlideShare
Conflicts & social dialogues
Conflicts & social dialogues
Wird geladen in …3
×

Hier ansehen

1 von 6
1 von 6

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Ähnliche Bücher

Kostenlos mit einer 30-tägigen Testversion von Scribd

Alle anzeigen

Ähnliche Hörbücher

Kostenlos mit einer 30-tägigen Testversion von Scribd

Alle anzeigen

Why Firms Win

  1. 1. BY SAMUEL PHINEAS UPHAM Why Firms Win
  2. 2. The Dynamic Capabilities View Might explain why some firms have sustainable competitive advantage Powerful group of ideas that:  Explains successes, failures, and sources of struggle  Valuable in times of uncertainty to change  Added value overstated
  3. 3. Organizational Capabilities and Behavior Nelson and Winter’s point of view:  Individuals: skilled behavior is a product of routine, tacit knowledge and past behavior/learning. Author’s argument:  decisions in organizations may not be optimal  where organizational memory exists Authors generalize from individual view to apply “evolutionary economics” to organizational level. Theory builds up from the micro to the macro level:  conceptual parallel between micro and macro  causal link between behavior of individuals and nature and behavior of capabilities
  4. 4. Truce Between Motivations Organizational routines allow for organizational capabilities. This view provides the foundation of the capabilities view and also generates some interesting consequences.  organizational routines resist changes  organizational capabilities are very hard to imitate This resistance to change: can be seen as a competitive advantage. Path dependency and lack of simplicity of capabilities lends the power as sources of durable competitive advantage.
  5. 5. Not of the Common Garden Variety Capabilities cannot be of the common garden variety if they are to be valuable. Jay Barney (1991)  If capabilities are to confer strategic advantage, they must be of a special type. Dericks and Cool (1989)  Describe strategic asset stocks seen as flowing over time – either rising or falling.  Many capabilities grow over time, they cannot be acquired immediately. Jan Rivkin (2001)  describes how capabilities must not be too complex  nor to simple Capabilities must be of a certain sort to be durable competitive advantages
  6. 6. Not of the Common Garden Variety Capabilities cannot be of the common garden variety if they are to be valuable. Jay Barney (1991)  If capabilities are to confer strategic advantage, they must be of a special type. Dericks and Cool (1989)  Describe strategic asset stocks seen as flowing over time – either rising or falling.  Many capabilities grow over time, they cannot be acquired immediately. Jan Rivkin (2001)  describes how capabilities must not be too complex  nor to simple Capabilities must be of a certain sort to be durable competitive advantages

×