Dynamic capabilities in early‐phase entrepreneurship

Abstract

The dynamic capabilities perspective has received increasing attention in the field of strategic management research. By focusing not only on the competitive advantage that is provided by a certain resource constellation, but also on the change of firms' resources over time to fit changing business environments, this perspective underlines the strategic importance of innovation. Despite the apparent interest in the dynamics of firm resources, there is still limited empirical evidence for how the strategic matching of resources and market needs is actually done, particularly in more rapidly changing environments. In order to investigate this process, an empirical study of 59 start-ups in the Swedish mobile Internet industry was performed. A first finding from the study is that start-ups which change market focus have a significantly higher probability to survive their first years. Furthermore, it is seen that in most cases, the change in market focus takes place without any related change in the technological resources that are used by the firm, indicating that an important factor at this stage is the flexible use of resources in searching for a suitable match between resources and market opportunities. This mode of learning and adaptation is very different from earlier proposed models focusing on the acquisition and transformation of resources. Instead, the early-stage dynamic capabilities reveal themselves as bricolage, that is, the capacity to re-interpret and re-combine already existing resources and thereby improve their fit with the demands of the market environment. The results suggest that earlier proposed dynamic capabilities frameworks need to be modified, by taking into account the single entrepreneur as a source of dynamic capabilities, and by introducing the concept of resource flexibility. In terms of managerial implications, the findings underline the importance for entrepreneurs to balance the striving for distinctive capabilities that provide competitive advantage and the experimentation and improvisation needed to adapt to changes in the market.

Encouraging Female Entrepreneurship in Jordan: Environmental Factors, Obstacles and Challenges

“…Creativity and innovation play a fundamental role in entrepreneurship (Boccardelli & Magnusson, 2006; S. H. Lee & Wong, 2004) and in this respect the respondents felt that they…”

“…In addition to personal traits, factors in the micro and macro environment that can encourage or hinder entrepreneurship have also been investigated (Franco et al, 2010;Franke & Luthje, 2003). Some of these environmental factors are: market structure and dynamics (Boccardelli & Magnusson, 2006;Van Stel, Storey, & Thurik, 2007); access to financing (Sara Carter, Shaw, Lam, & Wilson, 2007;Itani, Sidani, & Baalbaki, 2011a;Kim, Aldrich, & Keister, 2006;Sandhu, Sidique, & Riaz, 2011;Welsh, Memili, Kaciak, & Al Sadoon, 2014); government policy (Ahmad & Xavier, 2011;N. Carter, Brush, Greene, Gatewood, & Hart, 2003;Goby & Erogul, 2011;Minniti, 2008);political and economic stability (Lerner, 2010;Movahedi & Yaghoubi-Farani, 2012;Taylor & Plummer, 2003);culture and society's views on entrepreneurship (C. C. Baughn et al, 2006;C.…”

Digital data, dynamic capability and financial performance: an empirical investigation in the era of Big Data

“…Moreover, large firms in Western Europe are relatively smaller than their typical counterparts in the US. Perhaps our sample included firms that were too small, even if the dynamic capability concept seems useful in entrepreneurial and small firm contexts (Gibcus and Stam, 2012;Boccardelli and Magnusson, 2006). Consequently, in opposition to what has been shown using various firm samples, DD dynamic capability development does not affect the financial performance of smaller firms to a greater extent than it does for larger firms.…”

“…We thus excluded the 53 questionnaires wherein respondents indicated that they had launched no DD initiatives. We did not exclude firms from the study based on size or age, as the dynamic capability concept has proven useful in explaining organisational performance even for small entrepreneurial initiatives occupying early stages (Gibcus and Stam, 2012;Boccardelli and Magnusson, 2006). In the end, 125 questionnaires were completed by sales managers, 65 of which were also completed by IT managers from the same firms.…”

Research Capability, Job Satisfaction, and a Multiple Approach of Competitiveness: A Conceptual Framework for University Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

“…Naturally, universities focus on developing their research abilities yet this is often not included when seeking to determine and evaluate their competitive capabilities (Boccardelli & Magnusson, 2006;Helfat & Peteraf, 2003;McEvily & Marcus, 2005;Teece, 2007;Siegel, Waldman, Atwater & Link, 2004), and knowledge creation issues (Noruzi & Vargas-Hernández, 2010). Noruzi and Vargas-Hernández added that there is a need to consider the extent to which scientific research capability in universities contributes in a sufficient way, to its competitive capability.…”