Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities

Abstract

This paper investigates the mechanisms through which organizations develop dynamic capabilities, defined as routinized activities directed to the development and adaptation of operating routines. It addresses the role of (1) experience accumulation, (2) knowledge articulation, and (3) knowledge codification processes in the evolution of dynamic, as well as operational, routines. The argument is made that dynamic capabilities are shaped by the coevolution of these learning mechanisms. At any point in time, firms adopt a mix of learning behaviors constituted by a semiautomatic accumulation of experience and by deliberate investments in knowledge articulation and codification activities. The relative effectiveness of these capability-building mechanisms is analyzed here as contingent upon selected features of the task to be learned, such as its frequency, homogeneity, and degree of causal ambiguity. Testable hypotheses about these effects are derived. Somewhat counterintuitive implications of the analysis include the relatively superior effectiveness of highly deliberate learning processes such as knowledge codification at lower levels of frequency and homogeneity of the organizational task, in contrast with common managerial practice. The authors would like to acknowledge the support received from INSEAD's R&D department and the Reginald H. Jones Center of the Wharton School. We are also grateful for the many suggestions, comments and critiques generously offered by Ron Adner, Max Boisot, Tim Folta, Anna Grandori, Bruce Kogut, Arie Lewin, Bart Nooteboom, Gabriel Szulanski, Christoph Zott and three anonymous reviewers Of course, we remain responsible for any remaining error and omissions. In its working paper version, this paper was titled "From Organizational Routines to Dynamic Capabilities." 2 Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities Abstract:This paper investigates the mechanisms through which organizations develop dynamic capabilities, defined as routinized activities directed to the development and adaptation of operating routines, and reflects upon the role of (1) experience accumulation, (2) knowledge articulation and (3) knowledge codification processes in the evolution of dynamic, as well as operational, routines. The argument is made that dynamic capabilities are shaped by the co-evolution of these learning mechanisms. At any point in time, firms adopt a mix of learning behaviors constituted by a semi-automatic accumulation of experience and by deliberate investments in knowledge articulation and codification activities. The relative effectiveness of these capability-building mechanisms is analyzed here as contingent upon selected features of the task to be learned, such as its frequency, homogeneity and degree of causal ambiguity, and testable hypotheses are derived. Somewhat counterintuitive implications of the analysis include the relatively superior effectiveness of highly deliberate learning processes, such as knowledge codification, at lower levels of frequency and homo...

Modern Resource-Based Theory(ies)

“…Winter, 2000, Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000Zollo & Winter, 2002;Teece, 2007;Di Stefano et al, 2010). What unites different approaches and definitions is the insistence on an organizational ability to alter its resource base.…”

Benchmarking for Routines and Organizational Knowledge

“…Related and growing approaches considered the dynamic nature of resources and routines (Teece et al 1997;Eisenhardt and Martin 2000;Zollo and Winter 2002;Winter 2003;Zott 2003;Teece 2007;Abell et al 2008;Argyres et al 2012). Some existing debates critically assess the dynamic aspect of the frameworks and propose alternatives (e.g.…”

“…Denrell et al 2003;Winter 2003;Foss and Ishikawa 2007;Abell et al 2008;Argyres et al 2012). Consensus exists on the fact that the dynamic components of routines are consistently sustained and enhanced by organizational knowledge (Teece 2007;Zollo and Winter 2002;Augier and Teece 2007). Also, more importantly, routines are endogenous to firms and heterogeneous across firms (Teece et al 1997;Winter 2003;Abell et al 2008;Argyres et al 2012;Felin and Foss 2011;Felin 2012;Felin et al 2012).…”

“…The mechanisms through which routines-which can be seen as collective patterns of activity-may enhance performance are not straightforward (Zollo and Winter 2002). A key criticism is that the theory does not permit empirical testing since the main relationship is between unobservable routines and observed performance (Priem and Butler 2001).…”

Exploring the Value of Dynamic Capabilities Theory: A synthesis of the theoretical building blocks

“…2007), rutin oz. procesov (Eisenhardt in Martin 2000 in naučenih vzorcev (Zollo in Winter 2002). Iz tega lahko razberemo, da je neskladje opredelitev vsebovano tudi v teoriji na temelju dinamičnih zmožnosti, saj prav tako ne moremo definirati jasnih in nedvoumnih razlik med obravnavanimi pojmi oz.…”