Dynamic Capabilities: Routines versus Entrepreneurial Action

By David J. Teece. 2012

1,550 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/52065a932bfdb211a38edaf816f8e9fbd3ff7f1f

How researchers see this paper

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

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Dynamic Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Management in Large Organizations: Toward a Theory of the (Entrepreneurial) Firm (2016, background): “…of organizational processes and managerial traits that can help the enterprise find and calibrate latent customer needs and promising technological opportunities, then orchestrate the resources needed to innovate, or coinnovate products and services that address them (Teece, 2007, 2012a).”
From social capital to entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities (2017, background): “In recent years, the DC approach has attracted a growing interest from the management literature (Teece, 2012; Helfat and Martin, 2015), modifying the static perspective of the resource-based view (Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).”
Business model innovation and entrepreneurial orientation relationships in SMEs: Implications for international performance (2019, background): “Thus, a firm’s ability to be proactive and develop its dynamic capabilities is stimulated by preparatory strategic adjustments, and change initiatives, which lead to BM change and allows the firm to stay ahead of their competition (Jantunen et al. 2005; Teece 2010, 2012).”
Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns (2017, background): “The Hub was seen as an innovation champion, and it was set up as a transient initiative rather than a competing unit, allowing it to engage in strategic actions that Volvo Cars would not necessarily have to replicate in the future (Teece 2012, p. 1397).”
Macro-level determinants of formal entrepreneurship versus informal entrepreneurship (2014, result): “This line of thought is strongly supported by several recent publications (e.g., Klein et al., 2013; Teece, 2012; Woldesenbet et al., 2012) which emphasize that entrepreneurial actions require dynamic managerial capabilities.”
Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective (2018, background): “For example, companies competing in fast ‐ changing, dynamic markets need to have superior market ‐ sensing capability (Teece, 2012); companies must build up their research and development (R&D) capabilities to gain competitive advantages in hi ‐ tech industries (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000); and…”
The relationship between marketing agility and financial performance under different levels of market turbulence (2019, background): “Dynamic capabilities are defined as higher-level competences that determine the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external resources/competences to address, and possibly shape, rapidly changing business environments (Teece, 2012).”
Dynamic Managerial Capabilities (2015, background): “As Teece (2012) emphasizes, entrepreneurial managers create markets and orchestrate resources.”
Entrepreneurial orientation in turbulent environments: The moderating role of absorptive capacity (2014, background): “In other words, firms should allocate their investments in resources and capabilities consistent with their strategic postures (Teece, 2012).”
Rethinking ‘Top-Down’ and ‘Bottom-Up’ Roles of Top and Middle Managers in Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Support (2017, neutral): “Organizational change entails ‘directing (and redirecting) resources according to a policy or plan of action, and possibly also reshaping organizational structures and systems so that they create and address technological opportunities and competitive threats’ (Teece, 2012, p. 1398).”
Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory (2018, background): “They encompass organizational processes as well as unique managerial decisions (Augier & Teece, 2009; Teece, 2012, 2016).”