Buscar en
European Research on Management and Business Economics
Toda la web
Inicio European Research on Management and Business Economics Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capa...
Journal Information
Vol. 24. Issue 1.
Pages 42-52 (January - April 2018)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
1208
Vol. 24. Issue 1.
Pages 42-52 (January - April 2018)
DOI: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.004
Open Access
Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis
Visits
...
Gema Albort-Moranta, Antonio L. Leal-Rodríguezb,
Corresponding author
alleal@uloyola.es

Corresponding author.
, Vicente Fernández-Rodríguezb, Antonio Ariza-Montesb
a University of Seville, Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Avda. Ramón y Cajal 1, 41018 Seville, Spain
b University Loyola Andalucía, Department of Business Management, C/Energía Solar 1, 41014 Seville, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Tables (8)
Table 1. Definitions of dynamic capabilities.
Table 2. Annual number of studies in dynamic capabilities.
Table 3. Top 20 countries with the highest rate of productivity.
Table 4. Top 10 countries in productivity per year.
Table 5. Most important authors in the literature on dynamic capabilities.
Table 6. Journals with greater number of studies on dynamic capabilities.
Table 7. The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities.
Table 8. The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities between 2012 and 2015.
Show moreShow less
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to serve as orientation and guidance to academics that are starting or currently developing their research within the field of dynamic capabilities, in order to enhance their knowledge about which are the key scientific journals, authors and articles shaping this topic. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis on dynamic capabilities, making use of the Web of Science database to perform it. This analysis comprises fundamental issues such as (i) the number of studies published per year, (ii) the countries with the highest rate of productivity, (iii) the most prolific and influential authors, (iv) assessment of studies citing dynamic capabilities, and (v) the most productive journals on dynamic capabilities and recent studies on this topic. Results reveal an exponential growth in the number of publications on dynamic capabilities for the 2000–2012 period. Although, since 2012 this growth has decelerated, the number of publications on this topic remains noteworthy. This study brings useful information for those academics and practitioners attempting to analyze and deepen within this particular field of research, at the same time that provides some insights concerning the future development and progress of the dynamic capabilities topic in the management, business and economics academic literature.

Keywords:
Dynamic capabilities
Bibliometric analysis
Web of Science
JEL classification:
M0
M1
M2
Full Text
1Introduction

Research on dynamic capabilities (DC) stands amongst the most prolific streams of research within the field of management for the last two decades. This might be explained by the high importance and awareness that the strategic management literature has devoted to this topic. Although the research domain of dynamic capabilities has become one of the most active in the strategic management field, several criticisms have aroused arguing the existence of some controversy and confusion around this concept. In fact, the authors are still looking for the nature of dynamic capabilities, its antecedents or drivers, its outcomes and the organizational and managerial processes and procedures underlying this concept (Cepeda & Vera, 2007; Teece, 2007) and there exists a lack of agreement concerning the conceptualization of this topic. However, this lack of agreement, been taken into account, should not prevent us from attempting to identify in this study the most relevant authors, journals and publications within the dynamic capabilities literature with the aim of building a reference framework for future researchers that might contribute to strengthen and unify this concept.

Despite the widespread diffusion and interest aroused by this topic, little attention has been paid until this moment to the pertinence of building a framework that brings the main currents and studies in the field of dynamic capabilities. In this line, several literature reviews have been made (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2010; Easterby-Smith, Lyles, & Peteraf, 2009). Nevertheless, few papers like the written by Vogel and Güttel (2013) entitled “The dynamic capabilities view in strategic management: a bibliometric review” could be highlighted as an attempt to develop a bibliometric review of this concept. However, these authors use different methods to measure and analyze the research outcomes, such as co-citation and bibliographic coupling, more aimed at detecting intertextual linkages existing between academic publications due to the referencing behaviour of scholars. In addition, these authors document co-citation analysis, while this technique might be also applied to additional bibliographic items (i.e., authors or academic journals). We aim to cover this gap, by analyzing further these complementary sources of bibliographic information.

Hence, the main purpose of our study is to orient researchers and enable a wider understanding and grasp of the dynamic capabilities topic. This paper might serve as an introductory reference and preliminary approach for new researchers targeting to become familiar with the literature on dynamic capabilities. To this aim, the article intends to clarify the concept of dynamic capabilities and subsequently develops a bibliometric analysis of the existing research on dynamic capabilities, trying to elucidate which view better describes the evolution of this topic during a period of 24 years (1991–2015), helping this way to clarify the concept and applications of dynamic capabilities. The bibliometric analysis leads us to acknowledge who are the most influential authors, which are the most profuse journals, which countries hold the highest rate of productivity, what has been the number of studies on dynamic capabilities per year, the studies citing dynamic capabilities, or the recent advances on this topic.

The paper proceeds as follows. The next section presents the theoretical background, where we intend to shed some light toward the concept of dynamic capabilities, on the basis of prior related studies. The third section comprises a description of the research methodology. The forth section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis. Finally, the fifth section brings together the discussion, and directions for future research.

2Conceptual framework

Although multiple definitions can be found in the literature (Table 1 gathers the most widely recognized of them), dynamic capabilities can be defined as the capacity that enables a firm to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. This is the sense in which Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) introduced the term of dynamic capabilities in the article entitled “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”. This paper is considered the most influential study on dynamic capabilities, together with a recently developed new framework of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007, 2014). This term is still used in our days, although, over the years, many are the authors who have attempted to redefine and expand the concept of dynamic capabilities, adjusting it to the particular context of the moment. Authors such as Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), Zollo and Winter (2002), Helfat and Peteraf (2003), Zott (2003), Winter (2003), Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson (2006), Teece (2007), Helfat et al. (2009) or Cepeda and Vera (2007), among others, have contributed with their particular view and understanding of dynamic capabilities. However, they have failed to provide a concise and comprehensive definition of dynamic capabilities and its conceptualization has not reached consensus yet (Protogerou, Caloghirou, & Lioukas, 2012). Consequently, this has produced some misunderstandings. More recently, Peteraf, Di Stefano, and Verona (2013) point out that the origin of such confusion appeared very soon, between the publication of what they called “seminal papers” – Teece et al. (1997) and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) –. What is certain is that, although the concept is born and develops linked to strategic management, the literature shows how researchers have paid great attention to its relationship with an increasingly broad variety of aspects, which jointly with its possible applications to different areas, has critically affected the definition of dynamic capabilities.

Table 1.

Definitions of dynamic capabilities.

Author  Definition 
Teece and Pisano (1994, p. 537)  Timely responsiveness and rapid and flexible product innovation, along with the management capability to effectively coordinate and redeploy internal and external competences. 
Teece et al. (1997, p. 516)  The firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments. 
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 1006)  The firm's processes that use resources-specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain, and release resources-to match and even create market change; dynamic capabilities thus are the organizational and strategic routines by which firms achieve new resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve and die. 
Teece (2000, p. 36)  The ability to sense and then seize opportunities quickly and proficiently. 
Griffith and Harvey (2001, p. 597)  Dynamic Capabilities is a combination of resources that are difficult-to-imitate, including effective coordination of inter-organizational relationships, on a global basis that can provide a firm competitive advantage. 
Zollo and Winter (2002, p. 340)  A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness. 
Lee, Lee, and Rho (2002, p. 734)  Dynamic capabilities are conceived as a source of sustainable advantage in Schumpeterian regimes of rapid change. 
Adner and Helfat (2003, p. 1012)  The capabilities with which managers build, integrate, and reconfigure organizational resources and competences. 
Helfat and Peteraf (2003, p. 999)  Dynamic capabilities do not directly affect output for the firm in which they reside, but indirectly contribute to the output of the firm through an impact in operational capabilities 
Winter (2003, p. 991)  Those (capabilities) that operate to extend, modify, or create ordinary capabilities. 
Zahra et al. (2006, p. 918)  The abilities to reconfigure a firm's resources and routines in the manner envisioned and deemed appropiate by its principal decision-maker(s). 
Helfat et al. (2009, p. 4)  The ability to perform a task in least minimally acceptable manner. 
Teece (2007, p. 1319)  Dynamic capabilities can be disaggregated in the capacity (a) to sense and shape opportunities and threats, (b) to seize opportunities, and (c) to maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining, protecting, and, when necessary, reconfiguring the business enterprise's intangible and tangible assets. 
Pavlou and El Sawy (2011, p. 239)  Dynamic capabilities have been proposed as a means for addressing turbulent environments by helping managers extend, modify, and reconfigure existing operational capabilities into new nes that better match the environment. 
Helfat and Martin (2015, p. 1)  The capabilities with wich managers create, extend, and modify the ways in which firms make a living-helps to explain the relationship between the quality of managerial decisions, strategic change, and organizational performance. 

In this line, we can find definitions such as the one provided by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) that presents dynamic capabilities as specific and identifiable processes that especially comprise the development of products, strategic decision-making, and management of alliances. Subsequently, Zahra et al. (2006) define dynamic capabilities as the firm's ability to reconfigure organizational resources and routines in the form that imagined and considered to be appropriate whereby the main decisions. Whereas, in their later study, Helfat et al. (2009, p. 4) define them as “the ability to perform a task in least minimally acceptable manner”.

In an effort to understand the nature of dynamic capabilities, Zollo and Winter (2002) and Winter (2003) distinguish between two types of routines: the first deals with the firm's operational activity – “operational routines” – and the latter involves the modification of operating routines – “dynamic capabilities” –. Dynamic and operational capabilities differ in their purposes and intended outcomes (Helfat & Winter, 2011). Operational capabilities comprise the firm's operational functioning, being also labeled “how we earn a living now” capabilities (Cepeda & Vera, 2007). In contrast, Helfat and Peteraf (2003, p. 999) argue that “dynamic capabilities do not directly affect output for the firm in which they reside, but indirectly contribute to the output of the firm through an impact in operational capabilities”. Teece (2007) recognizes in turn that operational capabilities help an organization's technical fitness by ensuring its day-to-day operational efficiency, whereas dynamic capabilities help to sustain a firm's evolutionary fitness, thereby creating long-run competitive success. Besides, Pavlou and El Sawy (2011) propose that dynamic capabilities might help managers to extend, modify, and reconfigure existing operational capabilities in turbulent environments.

Certainly, most studies framed within the dynamic capabilities view (DCV) highlight the strong connection between this set of higher order resources and capabilities, namely dynamic capabilities, and the attainment and renewal of competitive advantages (Vivas-López, 2005). For instance, authors like Camisón and Forés (2010) and Leal-Rodríguez and Roldán (2013) label dynamic capabilities to refer to the set of organizational competencies that allows firms to generate value and to leverage competitive advantages through strategic management processes, while Martelo-Landroguez, Barroso-Castro, and Cepeda-Carrión (2011) propose that organizations are able to increase customer value by identifying and effectively fostering adequate combinations of dynamic capabilities. Furthermore, dynamic capabilities may grant firms the necessary doses of flexibility that might enable them to adjust to uncertain and changing scenarios and to develop product, process and managerial innovations (Singh, Singh-Oberoi, & Singh-Ahuja, 2013). Similarly, Chaharbaghi, Adcroft, and Willis (2005) argue that a strategical combination of organizational transformability and dynamic capabilities are vital in explaining the organizations’ survival and renewal.

In spite of the possible discrepancies, from the initial contributions (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002) it already appears a fairly sharp agreement on the core elements that define dynamic capabilities: (i) level of environmental change, (ii) organizational processes or routines, (iii) resources configuration, (iv) managers’ decision making, and (v) learning mechanisms (Fukuzawa, 2015). As we have said before, Table 1 presents several definitions of dynamic capabilities employed in key studies.

3Method

Bibliometric analysis is a discipline that consists on the application of statistical methods to evaluate developments and knowledge enhancement regarding a specific subject and the assessment of the scientific quality and influence of the distinct works and sources (Bouyssou & Marchant, 2011; Daim, Rueda, Martin, & Gerdsri, 2006). With regard to the traditional literature review, this type of analysis is an innovative methodology (De Bakker, Groenewegen, & Den Hond, 2005).

This analysis provides useful information for those academics and practitioners attempting to analyze and deepen within this particular field of research (Duque-Oliva, Cervera Taulet, & Rodríguez Romero, 2006), as bibliometric analysis determines an array of significant indicators for measuring the bibliographic material. By virtue of the bibliometric analysis, researchers might access and expand their knowledge with regard to key indicators such as the number of publications, the most prolific authors, the countries where this field of research is more popular or the journals that devote more attention to publishing issues referred to this particular topic. Other indicators to be used for measuring a researcher's influence are the total number of publications, number of citations, citations/papers ratio (Hirsch, 2005) or the h-index1 (Merigó, Mas-Tur, Roig-Tierno, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Bachrach (2008) the number of studies measures the productivity and the number of citations constitutes a good proxy as for the researcher's influence.

The first step of bibliometric analysis involves identifying those databases that would be more useful for the study (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). This study relies on the use of the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WOS) database, formerly ISI Web of Knowledge, which is an online scientific information assistant that includes scientific documents and research paper across all disciplines. This database permits researchers to access to research papers and other documents from scientific journals and books in all fields of science (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). The journals indexed in the WOS have associated an impact factor in the Journal Citation Report (JCR).

This analysis was carried out in January 2016, through the access to the WOS database. This study analyzes scientific research for the period 1991–2015. The total amount of research studies analyzed on this paper comprises the areas of business, management and economics in the WOS.

To measure the existing publications, Cadavid-Higuita, Awad, Cardona, and Jaime (2012) define three types of indicators: quantity, quality and structural. The first indicator measures productivity in terms of the number of publications, while the second indicator measures the impact of a publication in relation to the number of citations. Besides, structural indicators measure the connections existing between the different works and authors. While other related studies such as the one developed by Vogel and Güttel (2013) have focused on structural indicators, this paper covers the two first types of indicators in order to measure what are the publications that entail greater recognition within the field of dynamic capabilities and serve as guidance for further research.

4Results

This section presents the findings of the bibliometric analysis of the scientific research on dynamic capabilities. This study focuses on documents published between 1991 and 2015 within the management, economics and business categories. The starting year, 1991, was chosen because it is when the first study dealing with dynamic capabilities was published, accordingly with the Web of Science. This paper is entitled “New technology adoption in an innovative marketplace: Micro- and macro-level decision making models” and was published in the International Journal of Forecasting by Bridges, Coughlan, and Kalish (1991).

This topic comprehends 3852 studies published in the Web of Science until the end of 2015, which includes 2808 articles, 793 proceedings papers, 265 reviews, 64 editorial material, 14 book reviews, 11 book chapters and 2 corrections.

This study uses the following bibliometric indicators:

  • Number of dynamic capabilities research documents published between 1991 and 2015.

  • Countries with the highest rate of productivity.

  • Authors with the highest citation rate.

  • Journals with more studies on dynamic capabilities.

  • The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities.

  • Recent most cited articles on dynamic capabilities (2012–2015).

4.1Year of publication

The topic of dynamic capabilities appears in academic research in 1991. Table 2 and Fig. 1 present the number of publications per year on dynamic capabilities since 1991. During the first year there were only two published studies within the Web of Science. During the following twenty-four years, the annual volume of studies has been continually increasing. Since 2004 this expansion became more significant with an annual increase until the record of 397 studies published in 2012. The escalation in publications from 2004 can be explained by two factors: the increase of research paper submissions to conferences and scientific journals, and the development of internet, enabling access to information sources and new trends of research (Merigó et al., 2015). However, from 2012 to 2015, the number of publications has experienced a slight decrease, which may suggest that although the number of publications is still considerable, the topic might be entering a maturity phase.

Table 2.

Annual number of studies in dynamic capabilities.

Year  Number of publications 
1991 
1992 
1993  12 
1994 
1995  11 
1996  19 
1997  25 
1998  29 
1999  15 
10  2000  47 
11  2001  57 
12  2002  60 
13  2003  78 
14  2004  101 
15  2005  129 
16  2006  179 
17  2007  260 
18  2008  308 
19  2009  308 
20  2010  354 
21  2011  390 
22  2012  397 
23  2013  395 
24  2014  353 
25  2015  307 
Fig. 1.

Number of studies on dynamic capabilities published between 1991 and 2015.

(0.1MB).
4.2Countries with the highest rate of productivity

Table 3 shows the twenty countries with the highest rate of productivity on dynamic capabilities. Such rate of productivity is measured through different indicators: i.e., the number of research articles published (TP), the total number of citations received by the published articles (TC), average citations per article published (C/P), and finally, the h-index, used to measure the quality of research output on the basis of the number of citations received.

Table 3.

Top 20 countries with the highest rate of productivity.

Rank  Country  TP  TC  C/P  h-Index 
USA  1277  77,806  60.93  123 
England  499  11,059  22.16  52 
China  420  1461  3.48  19 
Spain  261  2789  10.69  23 
Germany  213  3041  14.28  25 
Canada  205  6186  30.18  41 
Australia  192  1820  9.48  21 
Italy  180  3028  16.82  28 
Taiwan  170  1298  7.64  18 
10  Netherlands  165  3569  21.63  34 
11  Finland  128  1338  10.45  19 
12  France  128  5991  46.80  33 
13  Sweden  112  6177  55.15  20 
14  Denmark  86  2670  31.05  24 
15  Switzerland  71  1773  24.97  18 
16  South Korea  60  1370  22.83  14 
17  Norway  54  1078  19.96  18 
18  Singapore  53  1188  22.42  18 
19  Japan  44  2144  48.73  12 
20  Turkey  44  367  8.34 

The United States stands as the leading country in the ranking of countries with most studies published on dynamic capabilities. It is also the first qualified in the rankings of countries with most citations, highest average citations per article, and highest h-index. Between 1991 and 2015, scholars from the USA produced 1277 documents with 77,806 citations, 60.93 citations per article, and h-index of 123. This seems reasonable, given the dimensions of the United States and that North American authors have traditionally had greater access to scientific journals and databases than authors from other countries.

England and China occupy the second and third positions with 499 and 420 studies respectively. Nevertheless, despite accounting 420 publications, China has a low C/P of 3.48 points, whereas some countries placed behind hold a superior C/P index, such as the case of Spain that holds a 10.69C/P index with up to 261 publications. This leads us to point out that despite the quantity of Chinese publications on this topic is certainly significant, perhaps they are of minor academic worth, which might explain its lower rate of citations per publication.

The country with the highest h-index is the USA, followed by England and Canada. In the case of productivity rating (C/P), the USA is followed Sweden and Japan as the countries with more citations per article. The case of Japan is interesting, as it is a country with a high rate of citations per article published, despite having only 44 studies. This could be reflecting the high quality of Japanese studies or the existence and maintenance of a powerful research network.

Then, Table 4 shows the evolution of the number of studies published within each of the ten most productive countries since 1991. During the nineties, most articles appearing in journals indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science were published in the USA. Since 2000 it can be observed a significant proliferation in the number of publications. It is expected that the number of publications on dynamic capabilities will continue globally growing during the next years, but at a more moderate pace than during the 2005–2015 period.

Table 4.

Top 10 countries in productivity per year.

Year  USA  England  China  Spain  Germany  Canada  Australia  Italy  Taiwan  Netherlands 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996  13 
1997  15 
1998  13 
1999 
2000  28 
2001  35 
2002  33 
2003  30  10 
2004  49  13 
2005  54  20  13  10 
2006  68  18  22  13  12 
2007  75  35  48  12  15  14  11 
2008  87  44  60  14  19  11  14  16 
2009  118  44  50  12  10  17  10  14  14 
2010  111  42  42  33  17  23  13  18  29  15 
2011  112  38  27  42  20  22  20  16  21  11 
2012  125  49  35  38  27  26  27  20  23  23 
2013  94  54  31  40  28  16  28  28  20  15 
2014  92  49  41  31  20  25  18  13  17  19 
2015  91  46  39  23  32  29  25  17  12 
4.3Authors with highest citation rate

Many authors from a wide range of origins have carried out research on dynamic capabilities and published their findings in scientific journals indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. In this section, we show the most impactful authors on the field of dynamic capabilities. Table 5 analyzes the number of articles published (TP), the total number of citations received by the published articles (TC), average citations per article published (C/P), and the h-index. This ranking also points out the country where the authors develop their research activity.

Table 5.

Most important authors in the literature on dynamic capabilities.

Rank  Authors  Country  TP  TC  c/P  h-Index 
Teece DJ  USA  17  7130  419.41  13 
Foss NJ  Norway  14  620  44.29 
Hitt MA  USA  14  1875  133.93  13 
Volberda HW  Netherlands  14  904  64.57 
Winter SG  USA  14  2686  191.86  11 
Helfat CE  USA  13  1821  140.08 
Zahra SA  USA  13  2495  191.92 
Li Y  China  12  75  6.25 
Jacobides MG  England  11  625  56.82 
10  Tushman ML  England  11  1816  165.09  10 
11  Verona G  Italy  11  292  26.55 
12  Wright M  England  11  650  59.09 
13  Camison C  Spain  10  118  11.8 
14  George G  England  10  2162  216.2 
15  Grover V  USA  10  800  80 
16  Mahoney JT  USA  10  527  52.7 
17  Zollo M  Italy  10  1875  187.5 
18  Bowman C  England  513  57 
19  Eisenhardt KM  USA  3065  340.56 
20  Lewin AY  USA  425  47.22 

The most prolific author on the topic is David J. Teece with up to seventeen scientific articles. Besides, the author with greatest number of citations and more citations per article published is Teece with 7130 citations. Over the years, Teece performed studies that have significantly contributed to new theories development. It should be remarked that most of these researchers work in the USA and England. Nonetheless, a remarkably important number of authors work in, China and several European countries.

4.4Most productive journals

The Thomson Reuters Journal Citations Report (JCR) indexes scientific journals of different research areas. Hence, it reveals the distinct journals that have published research studies on dynamic capabilities. Concretely, in this case, we have limited our study to the journals belonging to the business, management and economics areas.

Identifying what are the journals that have been traditionally publishing research studies on dynamic capabilities becomes a critical issue in order to decide which journals to read when developing a review of the literature. In this vein, Table 6 presents the top 20 journals with the highest productivity on dynamic capabilities research. Three journals are noteworthy: “Strategic Management Journal” with 160 articles, “Organization Science” with 100 articles, and “International Journal of Technology Management” with 88 articles.

Table 6.

Journals with greater number of studies on dynamic capabilities.

Rank  Number of publications  Journals  Impact factor 2015 
160  Strategic Management Journal  3.341 
100  Organization Science  3.360 
88  International Journal of Technology Management  0.625 
82  Industrial Marketing Management  1.930 
75  Research Policy  3.470 
70  Journal of Management Studies  4.260 
66  Journal of Business Research  2.129 
60  Technovation  2.243 
59  Management Decision  1.429 
10  58  Industrial and Corporate Change  1.327 
11  53  International Journal of Operations Production Management  2.252 
12  53  Journal of Product Innovation Management  2.086 
13  47  Journal of World Business  2.811 
14  39  IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management  1.454 
15  39  Journal of International Business Studies  3.620 
16  38  Technology Analysis Strategic Management  0.845 
17  37  Journal of Management  6.051 
18  37  Long Range Planning  2.936 
19  37  R&D Management  1.190 
20  36  British Journal of Management  2.188 

Table 6 also shows the 2015 JCR impact factor associated to each journal. The impact factor is normally used to know the relative importance of a journal within a particular research field. Thus, academic journals with higher impact factor tend to be considered more impactful. In this study, the journal with the highest impact factor is “Journal of Management” with a score of 6.051 points. This journal is followed by, “Journal of Management Studies” with 4.260 points. Finally, in third place we find “Journal of Operations Management” that has an impact factor of 4.000 points.

4.5The 50 most cited studies

Finally, in the Web of Science we can observe a major proportion of contributions on dynamic capabilities with a high influence on business research. Table 7 presents a list with the 50 most cited studies about this topic. The most cited article has received almost 5164 citations. This specific study, entitled “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, was developed by the authors Teece, Pisano and Shuen and was published in 1997. The second article in the ranking is the work “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication technology”, published by Kogut and Zander (1992), which receives 3336 citations in total. Subsequently, in the third place, the authors Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) published the article “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?” which holds 2529 citations. An important proportion of the most cited articles in this field involve theoretical works aimed at the conceptualization and development of dynamic capabilities. Plenty of these works were carried out by eminent academic authorities in the field of dynamic capabilities, for instance: David J. Teece, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jeffrey A. Martin, Maurizio Zollo, Sidney G. Winter, Shaker A. Zahra, among many others. Moreover, accordingly with Eriksson (2014), the majority of empirical studies were published after 2005, indicating that this concept still capture the academics’ interest and that the study of this topic is quite recent.

Table 7.

The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities.

Rank  TC  Authors  Title  Type of study 
5164  Teece et al. (1997)  Dynamic capabilities and strategic management  Conceptual 
3336  Kogut and Zander (1992)  Knowledge of the firm, combinate capabilities, and the replication technology  Conceptual 
2529  Eisenhardt and Martin (2000)  Dynamic capabilities: what are they?  Conceptual 
1787  Levinthal and March (1993)  The Myopia of Learning  Conceptual 
1702  Zahra and George (2000)  Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension  Conceptual 
1456  Grant (1996)  Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration  Conceptual 
1285  Zollo and Winter (2002)  Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities  Empirical/quantitative 
976  Gulati, Nohria, and Zaheer (2000)  Strategic networks  Conceptual 
972  Teece (2007)  Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance  Conceptual 
10  941  Dyer and Nobeoka (2000)  Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case  Empirical/qualitative 
11  898  Gereffi, Humphrey, and Sturgeon (2005)  The governance of global value chains  Conceptual 
12  891  Kogut and Zander (1996)  What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning  Conceptual 
13  774  Benner and Tushman (2003)  Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited  Conceptual 
14  756  Gulati (1995)  Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis  Conceptual 
15  708  Gulati (1999)  Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation  Empirical/quantitative 
16  703  Amit and Zott (2001)  Value creation in e-business  Empirical/qualitative 
17  700  Winter (2003)  Understanding dynamic capabilities  Conceptual 
18  699  Orlikowski (2002)  Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing  Empirical/quantitative 
19  677  Baum, Calabrese, and Silverman (2000)  Do not go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology  Empirical/quantitative 
20  667  Helfat and Peteraf (2003)  The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles  Conceptual 
21  655  Maskell and Malmberg (1999)  Localised learning and industrial competitiveness  Conceptual 
22  622  Ancona and Caldwell (1992)  Demography and design-predictors of new product tem performance  Empirical/quantitative 
23  612  Gold and Arvind Malhotra (2001)  Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective  Empirical/quantitative 
24  591  Melville, Kraemer, and Gurbaxani (2004)  Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value  Conceptual 
25  534  Subramaniam and Youndt (2005)  The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities  Empirical/quantitative 
26  523  Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, and Grover (2003)  Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms  Conceptual 
27  499  Carlile (2004)  Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries  Conceptual 
28  497  Tripsas and Gavetti (2000)  Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging  Empirical/qualitative 
29  486  Makadok (2001)  Toward a synthesis of the resource-based anddynamic-capability views of rent creation  Conceptual 
30  472  Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland (2007)  Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box  Conceptual 
31  470  Wright, Dunford, and Snell (2001)  Human resources and the resource based view of the firm  Empirical/quantitative 
32  458  Wade and Hulland (2004)  Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research  Conceptual 
33  445  Danneels (2002)  The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences  Empirical/qualitative 
34  421  Williamson (1999)  Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives  Conceptual 
35  392  Knight and Cavusgil (2004)  Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm  Empirical/quantitative 
36  379  Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt (2001)  Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: why do firms know more than they make?  Conceptual 
37  378  DeCarolis and Deeds (1999)  The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry  Empirical/qualitative 
38  372  Lorenzoni and Lipparini (1999)  The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study  Empirical/quantitative 
39  367  Aragón-Correa and Sharma (2003)  A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy  Conceptual 
40  350  Teece (2010)  Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation  Conceptual 
41  341  Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2005)  Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedent's matter?  Empirical/quantitative 
42  329  Rai, Patnayakuni, and Seth (2006)  Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities  Empirical/quantitative 
43  326  Zahra et al. (2006)  Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda  Conceptual 
44  321  Newbert (2007)  Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research  Empirical/quantitative 
45  319  Lavie (2006)  The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view  Conceptual 
46  319  Helfat (1997)  Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamiccapability accumulation: the case of R&D  Empirical/quantitative 
47  315  Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu, and Kochhar (2001)  Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue – Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation  Empirical/qualitative 
48  308  Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008)  Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators  Conceptual 
49  294  Collis and Montgomery (1995)  Competing on resources-Strategy in the 1990s  Empirical/qualitative 
50  292  Smith and Tushman (2005)  Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams  Conceptual 
4.6The 55 most cited studies between 2012 and 2015

To be able to know the tendencies on the field of dynamic capabilities we carried out an analysis of the articles published in the Web of Science during the last four years (2012–2015). To this aim, we have chosen the articles that have been cited at least once. Table 8 shows the article's title, the name of the author, the date of publication and the type of study. Peteraf et al. (2013) suggest that dynamic capabilities have been conceptualized in two currents of investigation, evolutionary and ecological. One school belongs to Teece and its companions and the other one to Eisenhardt and Martin. Teece's school centers on the role played by entrepreneurs and managerial teams, while Eisenhardt and Martin's school brings a more ecological vision faced to empirical studies (Arndt & Norbert, 2015). This disagreement implies some consequences as for the evaluation of dynamic capabilities.

Table 8.

The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities between 2012 and 2015.

Rank  Author  Article  Type of study 
Pentland et al. (2012)  Dynamics of organizational routines: a generative model  Empirical 
Petit (2012)  Project portfolios in dynamic environments: organizing for uncertainty  Qualitative case study 
Teece (2012)  Dynamic Capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action  Conceptual 
Jacobides and Winter (2012)  Capabilities: structure, agency, and evolution  Conceptual 
Camisón and Monfort-Mir (2012)  Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives  Conceptual 
Vogel and Güttel (2013)  The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review  Bibliometric methods 
Kindström, Kowalkowski, and Sandberg (2013)  Enabling service innovation: a dynamic capabilities approach  Qualitative case study 
Beske (2012)  Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management  Conceptual 
Teece (2014)  A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise  Conceptual 
10  Hsu and Wang (2012)  Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: the mediating role of dynamic capability  Empirical 
11  Kor and Mesko (2013)  Dynamic managerial capabilities: configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm's dominant logic  Conceptual 
12  Argote and Ren (2012)  Transactive memory systems: a microfoundation of dynamic capabilities  Conceptual 
13  Biedenbach and Müller (2012)  Absorptive, innovative and adaptive capabilities and their impact on project and project portfolio performance  Qualitative–quantitative 
14  Schilke (2014)  On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism  Empirical 
15  Protogerou et al. (2012)  Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance  Empirical 
16  Chen (2012)  The synergistic effects of IT-enabled resources on organizational capabilities and firm performance  Empirical 
17  Nieves and Haller (2014)  Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources  Empirical 
18  Woldesenbet et al. (2012)  Supplying large firms: the role of entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses  Empirical 
19  Lin and Wu (2014)  Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework  Empirical 
20  Eggers and Kaplan (2013)  Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective  Conceptual 
21  Jiao, Alon, Koo, and Cui (2013)  When should organizational change be implemented? The moderating effect of environmental dynamism between dynamic capabilities and new venture performance  Empirical 
22  Chakrabarty and Wang (2012)  The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: a dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization  Empirical 
23  Rodenbach and Brettel (2012)  CEO experience as micro-level origin of dynamic capabilities  Empirical 
24  Helfat and Peteraf (2015)  Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfundations of dynamic capabilities  Conceptual 
25  Li and Liu (2014)  Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: evidence from China  Empirical 
26  Zhan and Chen (2013)  Dynamic capability and IJV performance: the effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities  Empirical 
27  Wilden, Gudergan, Nielsen, and Lings (2013)  Dynamic capabilities and performance: strategy, structure and environment  Empirical 
28  Jantunen, Ellonen, and Johansson (2012)  Beyond appearances – Do dynamic capabilities of innovative firms actually differ?  Qualitative case 
29  Ripollés and Blesa (2012)  International new ventures as “small multinationals”: the importance of marketing capabilities  Empirical 
30  Makkonen, Pohjola, Olkkonen, and Koponen (2014)  Dynamic capabilities and firm performance in a financial crisis  Qualitative case study–quantitative 
31  Chen and Chang (2013)  The determinants of green product development performance: green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity  Empirical 
32  Chien and Tsai (2012)  Dynamic capability, knowledge, learning, and firm performance  Empirical 
33  Ramírez, Österman, and Grönquist (2013)  Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic capabilities to frame managerial attention  Qualitative case 
34  Denford (2013)  Building knowledge: developing a knowledge-based dynamic capabilities typology  Conceptual 
35  Corner and Wu (2012)  Dynamic capability emergence in the venture creation process  Conceptual 
36  Newey et al. (2012)  The relationship between dynamic and operating capabilities as a stage-gate process: insights from radical innovation  Conceptual 
37  Daniel, Ward, and Franken (2014)  A dynamic capabilities perspective of IS project portfolio management  Conceptual 
38  Eriksson (2014)  Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities  Empirical 
39  Galvin, Rice, and Liao (2014)  Applying a Darwinian model to the dynamic capabilities view: insights and issues  Empirical 
40  Agarwal and Selen (2013)  The incremental and cumulative effects of dynamic capability building on service innovation in collaborative service organizations  Empirical 
41  Yung and Lai (2012)  Dynamic capabilities in new product development: the case of Asus in motherboard production  Empirical 
42  Koryak et al. (2015)  Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth  Conceptual 
43  Villar, Alegre, and Pla-Barber (2014)  Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: a dynamic capabilities view  Empirical 
44  Beck and Wiersema (2013)  Executive decision making: linking dynamic managerial capabilities to the resource portfolio and strategic outcomes  Conceptual 
45  Stadler, Helfat, and Verona (2013)  The impact of dynamic capabilities on resource access and development  Empirical 
46  Wang et al. (2013)  Examining the role of information technology in cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities  Empirical 
47  Wilden and Gudergan (2015)  The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: investigating the role of environmental turbulence  Empirical 
48  Di Stefano, Peteraf, and Verona (2014)  The organizational drivetrain: a road to integration of dynamic capabilities research  Conceptual 
49  Teece (2014)  The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in AN (Economi) theory of firms  Conceptual 
50  Lanza and Passarelli (2014)  Technology change and dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities  Conceptual 
51  Arend (2014)  Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: how firm age and size affect the ‘capability enhancement-SME performance’ relationship  Empirical 
52  Eriksson (2013)  Methodological issues in dynamic capabilities research – a critical review  Empirical 
53  Wang, Jaw, and Tsai (2012)  Building dynamic strategic capabilities: a human capital perspective  Empirical 
54  Arndt and Norbert (2015)  Evolutionary and ecological conceptualization of dynamic capabilities: identifying elements of the Teece and Eisenhardt schools  Conceptual 
55  Piening and Salge (2015)  Understanding the antecedents, contingencies, and performance implications of process innovation: a dynamic capabilities perspective  Empirical 

Among the latter most relevant publication in the Web of Science we can highlight “The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity”, from the authors Chen and Chang (2013) that identifies more with Eisenhardt and Martin's ecological school. In this article the authors study the influence of dynamic capabilities in the performance of green product development.

We also find articles more linked with the evolutionary school of dynamic capabilities, such as “Dynamic Capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action”, by Teece (2012), “Supplying large firms: The role of entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses”, from the authors Woldesenbet, Ram, and Jones (2012), or “Technology change and dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities”, from the authors Lanza and Passarelli (2014). These articles focus on introducing the concept of dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities, and in trying to understand how entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities can drive firm performance. Besides, we also identify articles more focused on senior management teams, for instance, “Executive decision making: Linking dynamic managerial capabilities to the resource portfolio and strategic outcomes”, by Beck and Wiersema (2013), which contributes to the understanding of the dynamic management capabilities through the development of a model that integrates dynamic management capabilities with organizational strategy and performance.

In recent years, there have appeared several works that focus on marketing and technological capabilities such as “The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: investigating the role of environmental turbulence”, by Wilden and Gudergan (2014), “International new ventures as “small multinationals”: The importance of marketing capabilities”, by Ripollés and Blesa (2012), or “Examining the role of information technology in cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities”, by Wang, Hu, and Hu (2013). This latter work focuses on two key organizational capabilities – marketing and technological – that drive the actions through which the company can face and adapt to a changing environment, being able hence to enhance its performance.

5Discussion and further research

Our analysis provides a general overview of the existing scientific research on the field of dynamic capabilities between 1991 and 2015 in terms of publications retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS) database. This paper might serve as a guide for future researchers who intend to develop studies on dynamic capabilities, and need to acknowledge which academic journals, authors and articles should be addressed to attain a proper theoretical framework within this particular field of study.

The exhaustive bibliometric analysis of 3852 documents gathered from the WOS database shows that 2808 are articles. The most popular scientific article on dynamic capabilities is “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, developed by Teece et al. (1997). The country responsible for most research on dynamic capabilities is the USA (1277 published documents), which may owe to the high proportion of journals based in the USA. The journals holding most widely published research on this topic is the “Strategic Management Journal” (160 documents), followed by the journals “Organization Science” (100 documents) and “International Journal of Technology Management” (88 documents). The most prolific dynamic capabilities author is David J. Teece with 17 documents. The results of the bibliometric analysis reveal a continued growth in the number of documents related to dynamic capabilities. In the latter year 2015 we can find 307 publications that present empirical works aiming to develop new theories and novel approaches. Although there are less works than on the previous year, it is still a remarkable figure.

This study highlights the three most cited studies within this topic, which can be considered as seminal works that should be addressed by every research work in this field. These works are the following: in first place, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, from the authors Teece et al. (1997), with 5164 citations; Secondly, the study entitled “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication technology” (Kogut & Zander, 1992), with 3336 citations. And, in third place, “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?” from Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), with 2529 citations.

On the other hand, this paper presents the studies with most citations within the 2012–2015 period. Among the theoretical studies published in this period we can highlight a study to provide new knowledge on the background, contingencies and consequences of performance differences between companies in the successful process innovation, based on the approach of dynamic capabilities (Piening & Salge, 2015), or a study by Eriksson (2014) that focuses on three areas: the processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Nevertheless, there remains a tendency to contextualize the concepts of dynamic and organizational capabilities. In addition, several articles explain the evolution of dynamic and organizational routines (Newey, Verreynne, & Griffiths, 2012; Pentland, Feldman, Becker, & Liu, 2012).

This study has some limitations. The first limitation is that many publications on dynamic capabilities might appear in non-indexed journals, which are unavailable in the WOS database. Frequently, the citation index or the number of publications measures quantitative figures, despite the actual quality of the document. The mere fact that an author is important or relevant persuades other authors to cite that author without reading the article or developing a decisive and significant view of its content (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). Another limitation can be that the results give a picture of the current situation, however these results may change over time, especially for the recent publications of the last two-three years that still have to grow considerably. And finally, this study is developed within a specific field – business, management and economics –. Consequently, researchers should be cautious while generalizing their conclusions.

Implications for further research are clear. In the case of empirical works, since first studies were published, there can be observed a trend characterized by exploring the role played by dynamic capabilities in the enhancement of business performance. However, recent works focus on more current issues such as technology; marketing; the environment; the role adopted by entrepreneurs, internationalization issues or the management of multinationals (Arend, 2014; Chen & Chang, 2013; Hsu & Wang, 2012; Teece, 2014). Other articles discuss the complementarities existing between dynamic capabilities and supply chain management (Beske, 2012; Koryak et al., 2015). Therefore, further research conducted on the field of dynamic capabilities should be less focused on the attempt to link DC with performance and advance toward the assessment of the impact exerted by DC on the above mentioned managerial issues.

Besides, we observe a noteworthy evolution of the published articles in this field of research. Initially, the articles focused on explaining theoretical models aimed at enabling the enhancement of the literature on this topic. The majority of empirical studies were published after 2005 (Eriksson, 2014). For this reason, it can be observed that this topic still arises high doses of presence and interest among researchers. The results show that despite the literature is quite fragmented and shows a lack of consensus in certain issues, research developments are continually proliferating and expanding the number of approaches and understanding of dynamic capabilities.

Further research should include articles that do not constrain their scope to the WOS, relying hence on the use of other online databases, as for example Scopus or Google Scholar. These databases might contain studies published in journals that are not indexed within the ISI Web of Science. In addition, subsequent bibliometric studies could compare the results from other databases with those presented in this research or perform a meta-analysis, which might enable the classification of the most cited articles or the latest articles in different categories.

References
[Adner and Helfat, 2003]
R. Adner, C.E. Helfat.
Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 24 (2003), pp. 1011-1025
[Agarwal and Selen, 2013]
R. Agarwal, W. Selen.
The incremental and cumulative effects of dynamic capability building on service innovation in collaborative service organizations.
Journal of Management & Organization, 19 (2013), pp. 521-543
[Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015]
G. Albort-Morant, D. Ribeiro-Soriano.
A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators.
Journal of Business Research, 69 (2015), pp. 1775-1779
[Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009]
V. Ambrosini, C. Bowman.
What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management?.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 11 (2009), pp. 29-49
[Amit and Zott, 2001]
R. Amit, C. Zott.
Value creation in e-business.
Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2001), pp. 493-520
[Ancona and Caldwell, 1992]
D.G. Ancona, D.F. Caldwell.
Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, (1992), pp. 634-665
[Aragón-Correa and Sharma, 2003]
J.A. Aragón-Correa, S. Sharma.
A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy.
Academy of Management Review, 28 (2003), pp. 71-88
[Arend, 2014]
R.J. Arend.
Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: How firm age and size affect the ‘capability enhancement – SME performance’ relationship.
Small Business Economics, 42 (2014), pp. 33-57
[Argote and Ren, 2012]
L. Argote, Y. Ren.
Transactive memory systems: A microfoundation of dynamic capabilities.
Journal of Management Studies, 49 (2012), pp. 1375-1382
[Arndt and Norbert, 2015]
F. Arndt, B. Norbert.
Evolutionary and ecological conceptualisation of dynamic capabilities: Identifying elements of the Teece and Eisenhardt schools.
Journal of Management & Organisation, 21 (2015), pp. 701-704
[Baum et al., 2000]
J.A. Baum, T. Calabrese, B.S. Silverman.
Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology.
Strategic Management Journal, (2000), pp. 267-294
[Beck and Wiersema, 2013]
J.B. Beck, M.F. Wiersema.
Executive decision making: Linking dynamic managerial capabilities to the resource portfolio and strategic outcomes.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20 (2013), pp. 408-419
[Benner and Tushman, 2003]
M.J. Benner, M.L. Tushman.
Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited.
Academy of Management Review, 28 (2003), pp. 238-256
[Beske, 2012]
P. Beske.
Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42 (2012), pp. 372-387
[Biedenbach and Müller, 2012]
T. Biedenbach, R. Müller.
Absorptive, innovative and adaptive capabilities and their impact on project and project portfolio performance.
International Journal of Project Management, 30 (2012), pp. 621-635
[Bouyssou and Marchant, 2011]
D. Bouyssou, T. Marchant.
Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (2011), pp. 1761-1769
[Bridges et al., 1991]
E. Bridges, A.T. Coughlan, S. Kalish.
New technology adoption in an innovative marketplace: Micro- and macro-level decision making models.
International Journal of Forecasting, 7 (1991), pp. 257-270
[Brusoni et al., 2001]
S. Brusoni, A. Prencipe, K. Pavitt.
Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make?.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (2001), pp. 597-621
[Cadavid-Higuita et al., 2012]
L. Cadavid-Higuita, G. Awad, F. Cardona, C. Jaime.
A bibliometric analysis of a modeled field for disseminating innovation.
Estudios Gerenciales, 28 (2012), pp. 213-236
[Camisón and Forés, 2010]
C. Camisón, B. Forés.
Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement.
Journal of Business Research, 63 (2010), pp. 707-715
[Camisón and Monfort-Mir, 2012]
C. Camisón, V.M. Monfort-Mir.
Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives.
Tourism Management, 33 (2012), pp. 776-789
[Carlile, 2004]
P.R. Carlile.
Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries.
Organization Science, 15 (2004), pp. 555-568
[Cepeda and Vera, 2007]
G. Cepeda, D. Vera.
Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective.
Journal of Business Research, 60 (2007), pp. 426-437
[Chaharbaghi et al., 2005]
K. Chaharbaghi, A. Adcroft, R. Willis.
Organisations, transformability and the dynamics of strategy.
Management Decision, 43 (2005), pp. 6-12
[Chakrabarty and Wang, 2012]
S. Chakrabarty, L. Wang.
The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: A dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization.
Journal of Business Ethics, (2012), pp. 1-13
[Chen, 2012]
J.L. Chen.
The synergistic effects of IT-enabled resources on organizational capabilities and firm performance.
Information & Management, 49 (2012), pp. 142-150
[Chen and Chang, 2013]
Y.S. Chen, C.H. Chang.
The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (2013), pp. 107-119
[Chien and Tsai, 2012]
S.Y. Chien, C.H. Tsai.
Dynamic capability, knowledge, learning, and firm performance.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25 (2012), pp. 434-444
[Collis and Montgomery, 1995]
D.J. Collis, C.A. Montgomery.
Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s.
(1995),
[Corner and Wu, 2012]
P.D. Corner, S. Wu.
Dynamic capability emergence in the venture creation process.
International Small Business Journal, 30 (2012), pp. 138-160
[Daim et al., 2006]
T.U. Daim, G. Rueda, H. Martin, P. Gerdsri.
Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73 (2006), pp. 981-1012
[Daniel et al., 2014]
E.M. Daniel, J.M. Ward, A. Franken.
A dynamic capabilities perspective of IS project portfolio management.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23 (2014), pp. 95-111
[Danneels, 2002]
E. Danneels.
The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences.
Strategic Management Journal, 23 (2002), pp. 1095-1121
[De Bakker et al., 2005]
F.G. De Bakker, P. Groenewegen, F. Den Hond.
A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance.
Business & Society, 44 (2005), pp. 283-317
[DeCarolis and Deeds, 1999]
D.M. DeCarolis, D.L. Deeds.
The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry.
Strategic Management Journal, (1999), pp. 953-968
[Denford, 2013]
J.S. Denford.
Building knowledge: Developing a knowledge-based dynamic capabilities typology.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 17 (2013), pp. 175-194
[Di Stefano et al., 2010]
G. Di Stefano, M. Peteraf, G. Verona.
Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 25 (2010), pp. 1-18
[Di Stefano et al., 2014]
G. Di Stefano, M. Peteraf, G. Verona.
The organizational drivetrain: A road to integration of dynamic capabilities research.
The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (2014), pp. 307-327
[Duque-Oliva et al., 2006]
E.J. Duque-Oliva, A. Cervera Taulet, C. Rodríguez Romero.
A bibliometric analysis of models measuring the concept of perceived quality in providing internet service.
Innovar, 16 (2006), pp. 223-243
[Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000]
J.H. Dyer, K. Nobeoka.
Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case.
Strategic Management Journal, (2000), pp. 345-367
[Easterby-Smith et al., 2009]
M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles, M.A. Peteraf.
Dynamic capabilities: Current debates and future directions.
British Journal of Management, 20 (2009), pp. 1-8
[Eggers and Kaplan, 2013]
J.P. Eggers, S. Kaplan.
Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective.
Academy of Management Annals, 7 (2013), pp. 295-340
[Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000]
K.M. Eisenhardt, J.A. Martin.
Dynamic capabilities: What are they?.
Strategic Management Journal, 21 (2000), pp. 1105-1121
[Eriksson, 2013]
T. Eriksson.
Methodological issues in dynamic capabilities research – A critical review.
Baltic Journal of Management, 8 (2013), pp. 306-327
[Eriksson, 2014]
T. Eriksson.
Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30 (2014), pp. 65-82
[Fukuzawa, 2015]
M. Fukuzawa.
Dynamic capability as fashion.
Annals of Business Administrative Science, 14 (2015), pp. 83-96
[Galvin et al., 2014]
P. Galvin, J. Rice, T.S. Liao.
Applying a Darwinian model to the dynamic capabilities view: Insights and issues.
Journal of Management & Organization, 20 (2014), pp. 250-263
[Gereffi et al., 2005]
G. Gereffi, J. Humphrey, T. Sturgeon.
The governance of global value chains.
Review of International Political Economy, 12 (2005), pp. 78-104
[Gold and Arvind Malhotra, 2001]
A.H. Gold, A.H.S. Arvind Malhotra.
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (2001), pp. 185-214
[Grant, 1996]
R.M. Grant.
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17 (1996), pp. 109-122
[Griffith and Harvey, 2001]
D.A. Griffith, M.G. Harvey.
A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities.
Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2001), pp. 597-606
[Gulati, 1995]
R. Gulati.
Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances.
Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1995), pp. 85-112
[Gulati, 1999]
R. Gulati.
Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation.
Strategic Management Journal, 20 (1999), pp. 397-420
[Gulati et al., 2000]
R. Gulati, N. Nohria, A. Zaheer.
Strategic networks.
Strategic Management Journal, (2000), pp. 203-215
[Helfat, 1997]
C.E. Helfat.
Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D.
Strategic Management Journal, (1997), pp. 339-360
[Helfat and Martin, 2015]
C.E. Helfat, J.A. Martin.
Dynamic managerial capabilities: Review and assessment of managerial impact on strategic change.
Journal of Management, 41 (2015), pp. 1281-1312
[Helfat and Peteraf, 2003]
C.E. Helfat, M.A. Peteraf.
The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles.
Strategic Management Journal, 24 (2003), pp. 997-1010
[Helfat and Peteraf, 2015]
C.E. Helfat, M.A. Peteraf.
Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 36 (2015), pp. 831-850
[Helfat and Winter, 2011]
C.E. Helfat, S.G. Winter.
Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (N) ever-changing world.
Strategic Management Journal, 32 (2011), pp. 1243-1250
[Helfat et al., 2009]
C.E. Helfat, S. Finkelstein, W. Mitchell, M. Peteraf, H. Singh, D. Teece, S.G. Winter.
Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations.
John Wiley & Sons, (2009),
[Hirsch, 2005]
J.E. Hirsch.
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (2005), pp. 16569-16572
[Hitt et al., 2001]
M.A. Hitt, L. Bierman, K. Shimizu, R. Kochhar.
Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2001), pp. 13-28
[Hsu and Wang, 2012]
L.C. Hsu, C.H. Wang.
Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: The mediating role of dynamic capability.
British Journal of Management, 23 (2012), pp. 179-205
[Jacobides and Winter, 2012]
M.G. Jacobides, S.G. Winter.
Capabilities: Structure, agency, and evolution.
Organization Science, 23 (2012), pp. 1365-1381
[Jansen et al., 2005]
J.J. Jansen, F.A. Van Den Bosch, H.W. Volberda.
Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?.
Academy of Management Journal, 48 (2005), pp. 999-1015
[Jantunen et al., 2012]
A. Jantunen, H.K. Ellonen, A. Johansson.
Beyond appearances – Do dynamic capabilities of innovative firms actually differ?.
European Management Journal, 30 (2012), pp. 141-155
[Jiao et al., 2013]
H. Jiao, I. Alon, C.K. Koo, Y. Cui.
When should organizational change be implemented? The moderating effect of environmental dynamism between dynamic capabilities and new venture performance.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30 (2013), pp. 188-205
[Kindström et al., 2013]
D. Kindström, C. Kowalkowski, E. Sandberg.
Enabling service innovation: A dynamic capabilities approach.
Journal of Business Research, 66 (2013), pp. 1063-1073
[Knight and Cavusgil, 2004]
G.A. Knight, S.T. Cavusgil.
Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm.
Journal of International Business Studies, (2004), pp. 124-141
[Kogut and Zander, 1992]
B. Kogut, U. Zander.
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.
Organisation Science, 3 (1992), pp. 383-397
[Kogut and Zander, 1996]
B. Kogut, U. Zander.
What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning.
Organization Science, 7 (1996), pp. 502-518
[Kor and Mesko, 2013]
Y.Y. Kor, A. Mesko.
Dynamic managerial capabilities: Configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm's dominant logic.
Strategic Management Journal, 34 (2013), pp. 233-244
[Koryak et al., 2015]
O. Koryak, K.F. Mole, A. Lockett, J.C. Hayton, D. Ucbasaran, G.P. Hodgkinson.
Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth.
International Small Business Journal, 33 (2015), pp. 89-105
[Lanza and Passarelli, 2014]
A. Lanza, M. Passarelli.
Technology change and dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities.
Journal of Small Business Management, 52 (2014), pp. 427-450
[Lavie, 2006]
D. Lavie.
The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view.
Academy of Management Review, 31 (2006), pp. 638-658
[Leal-Rodríguez and Roldán, 2013]
A.L. Leal-Rodríguez, J.L. Roldán.
The moderating role of relational learning on the PACAP–RACAP link. A study in the Spanish automotive components manufacturing sector.
Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 22 (2013), pp. 218-224
[Lee et al., 2002]
J. Lee, K. Lee, S. Rho.
An evolutionary perspective on strategic group emergence: A genetic algorithm-based model.
Strategic Management Journal, 23 (2002), pp. 727-746
[Levinthal and March, 1993]
D.A. Levinthal, J.G. March.
The myopia of learning.
Strategic Management Journal, 14 (1993), pp. 95-112
[Li and Liu, 2014]
D.Y. Li, J. Liu.
Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China.
Journal of Business Research, 67 (2014), pp. 2793-2799
[Lin and Wu, 2014]
Y. Lin, L.Y. Wu.
Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework.
Journal of Business Research, 67 (2014), pp. 407-413
[Lorenzoni and Lipparini, 1999]
G. Lorenzoni, A. Lipparini.
The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study.
Strategic Management Journal, (1999), pp. 317-338
[Makadok, 2001]
R. Makadok.
Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation.
Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2001), pp. 387-401
[Makkonen et al., 2014]
H. Makkonen, M. Pohjola, R. Olkkonen, A. Koponen.
Dynamic capabilities and firm performance in a financial crisis.
Journal of Business Research, 67 (2014), pp. 2707-2719
[Martelo-Landroguez et al., 2011]
S. Martelo-Landroguez, C. Barroso-Castro, G. Cepeda-Carrión.
Creating dynamic capabilities to increase customer value.
Management Decision, 49 (2011), pp. 1141-1159
[Maskell and Malmberg, 1999]
P. Maskell, A. Malmberg.
Localised learning and industrial competitiveness.
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23 (1999), pp. 167-185
[Melville et al., 2004]
N. Melville, K. Kraemer, V. Gurbaxani.
Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value.
MIS Quarterly, 28 (2004), pp. 283-322
[Merigó et al., 2015]
J.M. Merigó, A. Mas-Tur, N. Roig-Tierno, D. Ribeiro-Soriano.
A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014.
Journal of Business Research, 68 (2015), pp. 2645-2653
[Newbert, 2007]
S.L. Newbert.
Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research.
Strategic Management Journal, 28 (2007), pp. 121-146
[Newey et al., 2012]
L.R. Newey, M.L. Verreynne, A. Griffiths.
The relationship between dynamic and operating capabilities as a stage-gate process: Insights from radical innovation.
Journal of Management & Organisation, 18 (2012), pp. 123-140
[Nieves and Haller, 2014]
J. Nieves, S. Haller.
Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources.
Tourism Management, 40 (2014), pp. 224-232
[Orlikowski, 2002]
W.J. Orlikowski.
Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing.
Organization Science, 13 (2002), pp. 249-273
[Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011]
P.A. Pavlou, O.A. El Sawy.
Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities.
Decision Sciences, 42 (2011), pp. 239-273
[Pentland et al., 2012]
B.T. Pentland, M.S. Feldman, M.C. Becker, P. Liu.
Dynamics of organisational routines: A generative model.
Journal of Management Studies, 49 (2012), pp. 1484-1508
[Peteraf et al., 2013]
M. Peteraf, G. Di Stefano, G. Verona.
The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together.
Strategic Management Journal, 34 (2013), pp. 1389-1410
[Petit, 2012]
Y. Petit.
Project portfolios in dynamic environments: Organizing for uncertainty.
International Journal of Project Management, 30 (2012), pp. 539-553
[Piening and Salge, 2015]
E.P. Piening, T.O. Salge.
Understanding the antecedents, contingencies, and performance implications of process innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (2015), pp. 80-97
[Podsakoff et al., 2008]
P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, N.P. Podsakoff, D.G. Bachrach.
Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century.
Journal of Management, 34 (2008), pp. 641-720
[Protogerou et al., 2012]
A. Protogerou, Y. Caloghirou, S. Lioukas.
Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 21 (2012), pp. 615-647
[Rai et al., 2006]
A. Rai, R. Patnayakuni, N. Seth.
Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities.
MIS Quarterly, (2006), pp. 225-246
[Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008]
S. Raisch, J. Birkinshaw.
Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators.
Journal of Management, 34 (2008), pp. 375-409
[Ramírez et al., 2013]
R. Ramírez, R. Österman, D. Grönquist.
Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic capabilities to frame managerial attention.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80 (2013), pp. 825-838
[Ripollés and Blesa, 2012]
M. Ripollés, A. Blesa.
International new ventures as “small multinationals”: The importance of marketing capabilities.
Journal of World Business, 47 (2012), pp. 277-287
[Rodenbach and Brettel, 2012]
M. Rodenbach, M. Brettel.
CEO experience as micro-level origin of dynamic capabilities.
Management Decision, 50 (2012), pp. 611-634
[Sambamurthy et al., 2003]
V. Sambamurthy, A. Bharadwaj, V. Grover.
Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms.
MIS Quarterly, (2003), pp. 237-263
[Schilke, 2014]
O. Schilke.
On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism.
Strategic Management Journal, 35 (2014), pp. 179-203
[Singh et al., 2013]
D. Singh, J. Singh-Oberoi, I. Singh-Ahuja.
An empirical investigation of dynamic capabilities in managing strategic flexibility in manufacturing organisations.
Management Decision, 51 (2013), pp. 1442-1461
[Sirmon et al., 2007]
D.G. Sirmon, M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland.
Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box.
Academy of Management Review, 32 (2007), pp. 273-292
[Smith and Tushman, 2005]
W.K. Smith, M.L. Tushman.
Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams.
Organization Science, 16 (2005), pp. 522-536
[Stadler et al., 2013]
C. Stadler, C.E. Helfat, G. Verona.
The impact of dynamic capabilities on resource access and development.
Organization Science, 24 (2013), pp. 1782-1804
[Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005]
M. Subramaniam, M.A. Youndt.
The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities.
Academy of Management Journal, 48 (2005), pp. 450-463
[Teece, 2000]
D.J. Teece.
Strategies for managing knowledge assets: The role of firm structure and industrial context.
Long Range Planning, 33 (2000), pp. 35-54
[Teece, 2007]
D.J. Teece.
Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 28 (2007), pp. 1319-1350
[Teece, 2010]
D.J. Teece.
Business models, business strategy and innovation.
Long Range Planning, 43 (2010), pp. 172-194
[Teece, 2012]
D.J. Teece.
Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action.
Journal of Management Studies, 49 (2012), pp. 1395-1401
[Teece, 2014]
D.J. Teece.
A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise.
Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (2014), pp. 8-37
[Teece and Pisano, 1994]
D. Teece, G. Pisano.
The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 3 (1994), pp. 537-556
[Teece et al., 1997]
D.J. Teece, G. Pisano, A. Shuen.
Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18 (1997), pp. 509-533
[Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000]
M. Tripsas, G. Gavetti.
Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging.
Strategic Management Journal, (2000), pp. 1147-1161
[Villar et al., 2014]
C. Villar, J. Alegre, J. Pla-Barber.
Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: A dynamic capabilities view.
International Business Review, 23 (2014), pp. 38-44
[Vivas-López, 2005]
S. Vivas-López.
Competitive advantage and strategy formulation: The key role of dynamic capabilities.
Management Decision, 43 (2005), pp. 661-669
[Vogel and Güttel, 2013]
R. Vogel, W.H. Güttel.
The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 15 (2013), pp. 426-446
[Wade and Hulland, 2004]
M. Wade, J. Hulland.
The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research.
MIS Quarterly, 28 (2004), pp. 107-142
[Wang et al., 2012]
C.Y.P. Wang, B.S. Jaw, C.H.C. Tsai.
Building dynamic strategic capabilities: A human capital perspective.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (2012), pp. 1129-1157
[Wang et al., 2013]
E.T. Wang, H.F. Hu, P.J.H. Hu.
Examining the role of information technology in cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities.
Information & Management, 50 (2013), pp. 336-343
[Wilden and Gudergan, 2014]
R. Wilden, S.P. Gudergan.
The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: Investigating the role of environmental turbulence.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (2014), pp. 181-199
[Wilden and Gudergan, 2015]
R. Wilden, S.P. Gudergan.
The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: Investigating the role of environmental turbulence.
Academy of Marketing Science. Journal, 43 (2015), pp. 181
[Wilden et al., 2013]
R. Wilden, S.P. Gudergan, B.B. Nielsen, I. Lings.
Dynamic capabilities and performance: Strategy, structure and environment.
Long Range Planning, 46 (2013), pp. 72-96
[Williamson, 1999]
O.E. Williamson.
Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives.
Strategic Management Journal, (1999), pp. 1087-1108
[Winter, 2003]
S.G. Winter.
Understanding dynamic capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 24 (2003), pp. 991-995
[Woldesenbet et al., 2012]
K. Woldesenbet, M. Ram, T. Jones.
Supplying large firms: The role of entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses.
International Small Business Journal, 30 (2012), pp. 493-512
[Wright et al., 2001]
P.M. Wright, B.B. Dunford, S.A. Snell.
Human resources and the resource based view of the firm.
Journal of Management, 27 (2001), pp. 701-721
[Yung and Lai, 2012]
I.S. Yung, M.H. Lai.
Dynamic capabilities in new product development: The case of Asus in motherboard production.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23 (2012), pp. 1125-1134
[Zahra and George, 2000]
S.A. Zahra, G. George.
Absorptive capacity: A review and reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 2000 (2000), pp. K1-K6
Academy of Management
[Zahra et al., 2006]
S.A. Zahra, H.J. Sapienza, P. Davidsson.
Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda.
Journal of Management Studies, 43 (2006), pp. 917-955
[Zhan and Chen, 2013]
W. Zhan, R. Chen.
Dynamic capability and IJV performance: The effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, (2013), pp. 1-32
[Zollo and Winter, 2002]
M. Zollo, S.G. Winter.
Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organisation Science, 13 (2002), pp. 339-351
[Zott, 2003]
C. Zott.
Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study.
Strategic Management Journal, 24 (2003), pp. 97-125

The h-index is an academic author-level metric that intends to measure the levels of productivity and citation impact of a scholar's publications. The index is based on the set of the author's most cited papers and the number of citations received in other publications.

Copyright © 2017. AEDEM
Article options
Tools
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.