Capability Reconfiguration: An Analysis Of Incumbent Responses To Technological Change

By Dovev Lavie. 2006

598 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1e53a85e943710efeaf3d0449128d59352801cf2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. J. Eggers
2. Sarah Kaplan
3. Richard J. Arend
4. Yin-Xuan Lin
5. Laurence Capron
6. J. Pinkse
7. Juan Liu
8. Dayao Li

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. J. Eggers
2. Rahul Kapoor
3. Ans Kolk
4. J. Pinkse
5. Sarah Kaplan
6. A. Cozzolino
7. C. Li
8. Xiaoyun Chen

In Strategy and Management

1. J. Eggers
2. J. Pinkse
3. Yin-Xuan Lin
4. Kevin Zheng Zhou
5. Ans Kolk
6. Rahul Kapoor
7. Richard J. Arend
8. Fang Wu

Citations in the corpus

• The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the Newspaper Industry (2015, background): “Although the choice of a capability reconfiguration mechanism to narrow capability gaps depends on the pace and uncertainties of the technological change [84], the incumbents’ responses are guided by their intrinsic resources, processes, and cultural influences [85, 122].”
• Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation (2009, background): “Recent work calls for the identification of ‘dynamic capabilities’ that firms can use to adapt, integrate, and reconfigure their resources and competencies in response to changing environments (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), a field that suffers from a lack of empirical evidence (Lavie, 2006).”
• The Architecture of Dynamic Capability Research Identifying the Building Blocks of a Configurational Approach (2016, unknown): “…and cognition) Lampel & Shamsie (2003) Quantitative Regression Analysis of evolution of capabilities (mobilizing and transforming capabilities) Lavie (2006) Conceptual Literature review; hypothesis development Theorizing around substitution, evolution, and transformation as three mechanisms…”
• Motivation and Ability? A Behavioral Perspective on the Pursuit of Radical Invention in Multi-Technology Incumbents (2017, unknown): “Yet radical technologies may also be competenceenhancing (Tushman & Anderson, 1986), with incumbents acquiring new competencies and recombining these with their existing knowledge (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Schumpeter, 1934; Van deVen, 1986) in order to develop potentially r”
• Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐curves (2016, background): “…of industry incumbents (Abernathy and Clark, 1985; Tushman and Anderson, 1986; Henderson and Clark, 1990; Tripsas, 1997; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; Lavie, 2006; Benner, 2010), there has been relatively little explicit investigation of how and why the pace of substitution varies across different…”
• Knowledge management and innovation strategy: The challenge for latecomers in emerging economies (2008, background): “Lavie (2006) observes that these are the extremes of a continuum, and that a mix may be the best solution for resource reconfiguration at a particular time.”
• Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: Coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants (2018, background): “The predominant focus in the literature on core-knowledge discontinuities is also reflected in some of the identified factors explaining incumbent failure, such as core-knowledge obsolescence, core rigidities, inertia and path dependency in competence and knowledge development, as well as capability”
• Developing new innovation models: Shifts in the innovation landscapes in emerging economies and implications for global R&D management (2009, background): “To differentiate itself from its competitors and to gain legitimacy among its stakeholders, the latecomer firm needs to replace old, redundant and obsolete resources with new, sustainable and more competitive ones, either by total substitution or through sequential evolution (Lavie, 2006; Li and Koz”
• How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies (2010, methodology): “The second item gauges firms' potential to keep their competitive advantages in the face of industrial changes by adapting their existing capabilities (Lavie, 2006).”
• Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework (2014, background): “Lavie (2006) suggests that a firm should modify its business direction through internal and external learning by changing, acquiring or discarding resources.”
• Flexing the Frame: TMT Framing and the Adoption of Non-Incremental Innovations in Incumbent Firms (2017, unknown): “Innovation is a site ripe with potential for framing ambiguity, contestation, and resistance (Lavie, 2006; Weick, 1990).”