Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: spare change, everyone?

Abstract

Why do some firms succeed in a dynamic competitive environment when others fail? Recently, concepts and models addressing this question have increasingly clustered around the dynamic capabilities view (DCV). Citation counts suggest that the DCV is the new touchstone firm-based performance-focused theory (Teece et al. [1997], for example, had received 1180 citations in the ISI Web of Knowledge as of June 2008), and case studies of innovative firms such as IDEO (Hargadon and Sutton, 1997) have fueled interest. We take a step back to assess the ability of the DCV to explain successful change with logical consistency, conceptual clarity and empirical rigor, criteria suggested by Laudan (1977). Such an assessment is important not only because of the DCV’s popularity, but also because of the theoretical and practical significance of the issues it addresses. While the arguably static resource-based view (RBV) emphasizes the value of resources, the DCV addresses the need to explain changes in valuable resources, e.g. the erosion of asset stocks (Dierickx and Cool, 1989) and the changes in asset values (Miller and Shamsie, 1996). The DCV also addresses a practical need to understand how firms can change effectively, given perceptions that many competitive environments now change at increasing rates, and that firms have difficulty changing successfully (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Strebel, 1996). Our assessment identifies four major problems that limit the potential contribution of the DCV: (1) unclear value-added relative to existing concepts; (2) lack of a coherent theoretical foundation; (3) weak empirical support; and (4) unclear practical implications. Although potentially interrelated, each problem presents different difficulties and raises different questions.