Creation of dynamic capacities and their evolution through engineering projects.
| Autor | Freitas, Simone de Lara Teixeira Uchoa |
1 Introduction
The concept of dynamic capabilities (DCs) arose to identify the sources of enterprise-level competitive advantage over time (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) and appeared as a valuable theoretical approach to promote a better understanding of the reconfiguration of knowledge through routines (Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2010). Most of the contributions are theoretical and study the concept, nature, and role of DCs, the mechanisms for their creation, and their results (Baretto, 2010; Di Stefano et ah, 2010; Takahashi, Bulgacov & Giacomini, 2017; Wilden, Devinney & Dowling, 2016). Despite these efforts, the concept is still in need of theoretical and empirical development. Empirical studies represent the main challenge in this field, since they can contribute to understanding the various theoretical interpretations (Easterby-Smith, Lyles & Peteraf, 2009; Eriksson, 2014).
The objective of this study is to discuss how the construction of dynamic capabilities occurs, articulating codified and tacit knowledge, and how the progress of these capacities can be evaluated through indicators. For this purpose, we carry out case studies in engineering services companies that provide services to Petrobras (a Brazilian oil company). Engineering services companies have been scarcely explored in the literature, despite their critical importance to the economy as a whole. In particular, engineering services companies with contracts with Petrobras tend to be more concerned about increasing their DCs, since the characteristics of the Petrobras bidding process, based on a demanding supplier qualification system, imply a constant search for improvements in processes and services by engineering contractors. Projects between Petrobras and contractors are complex, particularly those for offshore drilling, manufacturing facilities (refineries and similar projects) and the definition of engineering methods. These characteristics lead its suppliers--prospective or existing--to seek capabilities before and during contracts. So, we objectively asked: how do engineering services companies create dynamic capabilities and how do these capabilities evolve?
The main findings of this study allow us to affirm that most learning takes place through projects, which require greater managerial and technological skills to compete in more complex contracts. Using expertise, information technology tools (more precisely, software) and alliances (such as mergers, acquisitions or partnerships with other companies), engineering services companies develop new capabilities that increase the quality and the complexity of the services provided.
2 Theoretical Framework
The literature regarding DCs has generally been linked with the concept of routine, which would be the most important method of storing the specific knowledge of an organization. Through the absorption and accumulation of knowledge, existing routines are modified and improved, thus characterizing a dynamic way to reproduce knowledge that can shape itself in accordance with the complexity of the environment (Zollo & Winter, 2002) or based on past experiences (Schilke, 2014).
The question about "what are DCs" seems to be well defined in the literature as a set of specific and identifiable processes, such as product development, strategic decisions and alliances (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Eriksson, 2014), which operate jointly toward integrating, extending or modifying resources (Cepeda & Vera, 2007; Easterby-Smith & Prieto, 2008; Winter, 2003). Such processes are able to respond quickly to changes (Kor & Mesko, 2013; Teece et ah, 1997; Teece & Pisano, 1994) through the generation and modification of their operating routines (Zollo & Winter, 2002), which generates new strategies for adding value to the company (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2005).
For analytical purposes, DCs can be disaggregated into the capacity (1) to sense and shape opportunities and threats, (2) to seize opportunities, and (3) to maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining, protecting, and reconfiguring the business enterprise's intangible and tangible assets (Teece, 2007). For instance, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) identify knowledge transfer routines and performance measurement systems as essential elements of dynamic capabilities.
Several authors suggest that to improve research on DCs, researchers needed to go beyond focusing on the definition to focusing on how DCs can be measured (Di Stefano et al., 2010; Wilden et al., 2016). Empirical research is needed to test the concepts already instituted (Eriksson, 2014). The question about "how to create DCs" has not achieved consensus in the literature. For instance, Kerzner (2000) defends the idea that the best practices for composing DCs are defined internally in the company, considering what has worked well and is likely to work well in the future if repeated. This idea differs from that of Athreye, Dinar and Shyama (2009), for whom the creation or alteration of a capability occurs in response to new opportunities to capture the competitive advantages in the company's external environment. Any consensus may still be far from being achieved.
Zollo and Winter (2002) investigate the mechanisms through which organizations develop DCs. The model proposed by the authors--and which will be used in this study--addresses the role of (1) experience accumulation, (2) knowledge articulation and (3) knowledge codification. The authors argue that the coevolution of these learning mechanisms shapes DCs.
-
I Experience accumulation
Experience accumulation through knowledge and ways of learning has become essential in the context of companies' capabilities. Experience accumulation describes the ability of an organization to understand the value of knowledge and translate it into practice (Zahra, Sapienza & Davidsson, 2006). It is also considered one of the primary contributors to organizational performance (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Schilke, 2014). This knowledge can be both acquired from the external environment, through mergers, acquisitions and other inter-organizational relationships (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Gonzalez & Martins, 2015), and from the internal environment, through past experiences (Eriksson, 2014).
The ability to absorb knowledge forms part of the fields of DCs, organizational learning and knowledge management (Easterby-Smith, Graca, Antonacopoulou & Ferdinand, 2008). When an organization hires experts in each area, encourages the generation of new ideas and develops easily accessible communication systems, the organization reaches a higher level of accumulated experience (Zollo & Winter, 2002). In a context where technological, regulatory, and competitive conditions are subject to rapid change, systematic change efforts are needed to accompany the environmental changes (Takahashi et al., 2017; Zollo & Winter, 2002).
The consensus in the literature is that organizational learning is based on the learning process of individuals in organizations (Easterby-Smith, Crossan & Nicolini, 2000; Kor & Mesko, 2013; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Past experiences, attempts, mistakes and improvisations generate a tacit knowledge stock that does not require a great deal of cognitive and economic effort (Zahra, Sapienza & Davidsson, 2006).
2.2 Knowledge articulation
Many studies on organizational learning have not explicitly mentioned knowledge, which instead has been implicitly assumed as a result of the learning process (Crossan, Lane, White & Djurfeldt, 1995). The transfer of knowledge in organizations--a process by which one unit (individual, group, department, division) is affected by the experience of another--can be the key for increasing organizational competencies (Argote, Ingram, Levine & Moreland, 2000; Kor & Mesko, 2013). Zollo and Winter (2002) called attention to the development of collective competence, through which implicit knowledge is articulated via collective discussions, information sessions and performance evaluation processes. According to the authors, by sharing their individual experiences and comparing their views with those of their colleagues, the members of an organization can achieve a better level of understanding of the learning mechanisms, between the actions necessary to perform a particular task and the performance results produced. Based on this view, knowledge can be regarded as an object, something that can be stored and manipulated as a condition to access information (Eriksson, 2014; McQueen, 1998).
From the perspective of information, Alavi and Leidner (2001) described the systems of knowledge management as being 'a class of information systems applied to managing organizational knowledges a view also shared by Prieto and Easterby-Smith (2006) and Gonzalez and Martins (2015). Examples include knowledge registered using online directories and retrieved by searching databases, sharing knowledge and working together in virtual teams, accessing information on previous projects and data and transaction studies aiming to understand the behaviour and needs of the customer, among others (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). When reviewing the literature discussing IT applications for knowledge management, Alavi and Leidner (2001) identified three applications commonly found in organizations: (i) The coding and the sharing of best practices through benchmarking, (ii) The creation of corporate knowledge directories, which are able to map the internal competencies of the organization; and (iii) The creation of knowledge networks as platforms that gather experts from different fields, the objective of which is to promote the exchange of knowledge among their members. By adjusting to the needs of each organization, knowledge management systems inspire managers to use IT tools to support the knowledge management processes.
2.3 Knowledge codification
Knowledge coding has been defined by Zollo and Winter (2002) as the degree to which members of an...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
