Seminar on Technology Strategy
Session 3 :Knowledge, Dynamic Capabilities & Learning Perspectives
ODI-OM 석사1학기이상민
Teece, D. J. (2007). “Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance.” Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13): 1319-1350.
The author claims that in fast moving business environment, which is open to global competition sustainable advantage requires more than the ownership of difficult to replicate assets. To gain sustainability in that kind of environment, firms need to attain difficult to replicate dynamic capabilities, which is continuously creating, extending, upgrading, protecting and keeping relevant the enterprise’s unique asset base.According to the paper, the dynamic capabilities can be explained through 3 steps 1) to sense and shape opportunities 2) To seize opportunities 3) to maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining, protecting and reconfiguring the business enterprise’s intangible/tangible assets. Also, dynamic capabilities assist in achieving evolutionary fitness, in part by shaping environment. However, to identify and shape opportunities, firms must constantly scan, search and explore across technologies and markets, both local and distant. Then, through out the paper, the author suggests three types of framework describing 1) Elements of an ecosystem framework for ‘sensing’ market and technological opportunities 2) Strategic decision skills/execution, and 3) combination, reconfiguration, and asset protection. Finally, by consistently aligning the three frameworks, the author suggests the dynamic capabilities and business performance framework. It is all about how a firm can capture the opportunity in the market to earn profits followed by decisions to take advantage of the opportunity.Thus in conclusion, dynamic capabilities framework highlights organizational and managerial competence that can enable an enterprise to achieve competitive advantage in environment of radical technological change
Through out the paper, the new concept of recognizing strategy that it is perceived in views of evolutionary perspective was interesting and I came to know that approach the dynamic capability was taking is very different from RBV(Resource Based View), which was theme of our class’s last session.From comparing the RBV and DC(Dynamic Capabilities), I individually felt that while RBV had some background theory, DC was more concentrating on specific issues and details of the firm. That is, It is lacking generalizability than RBV. I thought that the framework suggested in this paper is limited in some cases. Thus, there should have way or further studies of efforts with applying the DC to more general situations.
Burgleman, R. A., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1997). Technology strategy: An evolutionary process perspective. In M. Tushman & P. Anderson (Eds.), Managing strategic innovation and change: A collection of readings (pp. 273-286). New York: Oxford University Press.
The paper defines technology as a ensemble of theoretical and practical knowledge, know how, skills and artifacts that are used by the firm to develop, produce and deliver its products and services. According to the paper, technology can be embodied in people, materials, facilities, procedures and in physical processes. The paper takes a evolutionary view towards technology and develops a process framework for discussing technological strategy. Since evolutionary view focuses on variation selection retention mechanisms for explaining dynamic behavior of the technology overtime, it turns out that cultural evolutionary perspective, which view a strategy making as a social learning process could be considered in the study of technological development. According to the paper, there are two forces(factors) affecting when shaping the technology strategy, which are categorized by the locus and function of the forces. They are generative and integrative forces. Thus, the technology strategy is affected by the generative forces which control the firm’s strategic behavior internally and technology evolution externally. Where as, integrative forces(mechanisms) affect firm’s organizational context internally and industry context externally. Then, the author suggests four dimensions of substances for firm’s technological strategy, which might lead the firm to competitive advantage in the market. They are competitive positioning, Technology and the value chain, Scope of technology strategy and Depth of technology strategy. In case of execution of the strategy, the author suggests three steps to follow. Acquisition, development, and support. Through these steps a firm can achieve both comprehensive and integrated strategy.
This paper suggests quite firm model of establishing technology strategy by adopting two factors; locus and functions concept. I think that this concept might lack some other factors that aren’t from environment or firm it self. Also, achieving all factors that the author suggests is not possible in reality. There are always trade offs when establishing strategy especially related to technology as the environment surrounding the industry is often in turbulence. In addition, I found a point to think about the examples described the paper. The author allege that the firm introduced in the examples were successful because they somehow followed the model, which was suggested by the paper. However, I think that the analysis depends on the reader who reads the case. That it might have some problems considering generalization.
Bresnahan, Timothy, Greenstein, Brownstone, Flamm (1996), “Technical Progress and Co-Invention in Computing and in the Uses of Computers” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.Microeconomics, 1996. 1-83.
This paper(case) is based on practical data collected during 1989~1994 in field of computer industries. The paper suggests the concept of co-invention, which is distinguished from the original invention. Co-invention is defined as the invention of users that makes the original invention or technology more valuable through their own experimentation and discovery. The author describes the process of transition from host base computing to client/server computing (CS). In this context, the author suggests several theories of mechanisms for transition and confirms the appropriateness of the theory by comparing with the real data collected. One of thetheory was Co-invention theory. The main reason of transition referred in the paper was that host centric computing, which was dominant way of computing in 1980s, had difficulties of management and high rate of complexity. On the other hand, C/S was easy to use. Also the usage or using patterns of software at the firm, complexity and market thickness affected the fast starter and fast finisher of the transition process to adopt C/S. In the conclusion, the paper mentions that user co-invention takes the role of completing the innovation.
The paper described implementation of new technology based on delicate data analysis. However, they might have missed some other implications related to qualitative aspects, such as factors related to the other papers of this session. I tried to view the story of the new technology diffusion in perspective of Dynamic capabilities and RBV respectively. Also, as the computer industry is a field that most of technologies used is IT driven, I thought that is it okay to think this kind of original invention and co-invention connected to disruptive innovation. Finally I found that the paper is of particular industry, the claims, patterns and methodologies that used in the paper will be limited to such industry field. That is it might involve generalization issue as other many studies of technology do.