Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology

Abstract

How should we understand why firms exist? A prevailing view has been that they serve to keep in check the transaction costs arising from the self-interested motivations of individuals. We develop in this article the argument that what firms do better than markets is the sharing and transfer of the knowledge of individuals and groups within an organization. This knowledge consists of information (e.g., who knows what) and of know-how (e.g., how to organize a research team). What is central to our argument is that knowledge is held by individuals, but is also expressed in regularities by which members cooperate in a social community (i.e., group, organization, or network). If knowledge is only held at the individual level, then firms could change simply by employee turnover. Because we know that hiring new workers is not equivalent to changing the skills of a firm, an analysis of what firms can do must understand knowledge as embedded in the organizing principles by which people cooperate within organizations. Based on this discussion, a paradox is identified: efforts by a firm to grow by the replication of its technology enhances the potential for imitation. By considering how firms can deter imitation by innovation, we develop a more dynamic view of how firms create new knowledge. We build up this dynamic perspective by suggesting that firms learn new skills by recombining their current capabilities. Because new ways of cooperating cannot be easily acquired, growth occurs by building on the social relationships that currently exist in a firm. What a firm has done before tends to predict what it can do in the future. In this sense, the cumulative knowledge of the firm provides options to expand in new but uncertain markets in the future. We discuss at length the example of the make/buy decision and propose several testable hypotheses regarding the boundaries of the firm, without appealing to the notion of “opportunism.”

The Effect of Pro-Entrepreneurship Architecture on Organisational Outcomes

“…Three principal outcomes are specified as: (1) capability development, (2) strategic repositioning, and (3) a third set of separate outcomes, in the form of growth indicators. The justification for including these growth outcomes is that theoretical arguments from the resource-and knowledge-based views of the firm (Barney 1991;Kogut, Zander 1992) clearly suggest that growth would only enhance profitability if the expansion is aligned with the firm's unique resources and competences (Steffens et al 2009). …”

Conceptualization and theorization of the Big Data

“…Verified the presence of the theories of Dynamic Capabilities (Teece & Pisano, 1994), Transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1981), Evolutionary Theory (Nelson & Winter, 2009) and Resource Based View (Barney, 1991), proposed by Vision based on knowledge (Grant, 1996;Kogut & Zander, 1992). The theoretical dominance, however, is related to the Resource Based View and principles dealing with the competitive advantage.…”

“…By analyzing the factor 2, formed by the authors, Grant R, 1996Kogut B 1992, Nelson R, 1982Barney J, 1991(Barney, 1991Grant, 1996;Kogut & Zander, 1992;Nelson, 1982) found the theoretical currents involved in theme Big Data and innovation to date. Verified the presence of the theories of Dynamic Capabilities (Teece & Pisano, 1994), Transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1981), Evolutionary Theory (Nelson & Winter, 2009) and Resource Based View (Barney, 1991), proposed by Vision based on knowledge (Grant, 1996;Kogut & Zander, 1992).…”

Pesquisa em Marketing e Estratégia nos Principais Periódicos Internacionais: Um Estudo Bibliométrico sobre Publicações no Século XXI

“…O segundo fator, composto por 16 trabalhos voltados à aquisição de conhecimento como diferencial para obtenção de desempenho (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;Grant, 1996;Kogut & Zander, 1992;LeonardBarton, 1992;Levinthal & March, 1993;March, 1991). Importante notar que este fator traz alguns artigos relacionados a inovações, como uma forma da empresa transformar conhecimento em geração de renda (Henderson & Clark, 1990;Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988;Teece, 1986).…”

“…Barney (1986), Penrose (1959) e Peteraf (1993 entre outros. Em associação com VBR, as abordagens sobre capacidades das empresas, evolução e adaptação destas capacidades ao longo do tempo, mediante estímulos do ambiente (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;Grant, 1996;Prahalad & Hamel, 1990), bem como abordagens de aprendizagem organizacional e KBV (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;Henderson & Clark, 1990;Kogut & Zander, 1992;Leonard-Barton, 1992;Levinthal & March, 1993), também são frequentemente empregadas, sempre voltadas à obtenção de bom desempenho e relacionadas às estratégias de marketing. Trabalhos sobre custos de transação, formação de redes e alianças e organização industrial e vêm decrescendo em frequência de citação.…”