Cited by 1,121Innovation and Knowledge ManagementManagement and Organizational StudiesBusiness Strategies and Innovation

Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a developmental path

Helfat, Constance E., Peteraf, Margaret A.·2009·Strategic Organization

Abstract

The aim of dynamic capabilities research is ambitious: to understand how firmscan sustain a competitive advantage by responding to and creating environmen-tal change (Teece, 2007). As one of the most central and difficult questionswithin the strategy domain, this might well be characterized as the Holy Grailof strategic management. The topical domain of dynamic capabilities, in conse-quence, is as broad and as complex as any in the field. It spans the domains ofstrategy process and content, and involves multiple levels of analysis, from man-agerial decision-processes, to organizational routines, to competitive inter-actions and environmental change. The complexity of the topic is matched,fittingly, by the complexity of the theoretical underpinnings. Undoubtedly, thishas generated some confusion. It is therefore not surprising that the critique ofArend and Bromiley (A&B) in the preceding essay reflects some of this confu-sion. Here, we address this by clarifying the dynamic capabilities concept, inrelation to its development and the challenges faced.We first survey the development path of dynamic capabilities research, anddiscuss the different theoretical bases of this emerging area of scholarship. Thenwe clarify issues regarding the definition of dynamic capabilities and discuss thelink between dynamic capabilities and firm performance. As part of our analy-sis, we address the two main conclusions of A&B regarding dynamic capabil-ities research. The first is that we should abandon the dynamic capabilitiesapproach if it does not ‘quickly develop a theoretical foundation’. The second isthat regardless of the pace of theory development, we should replace theseefforts with ‘work on strategic change tied to fuller theories of strategic organ-ization’. In what follows, we explain why these conclusions are premature andunwarranted. We also address other issues raised by A&B, focusing on the mainissues raised in the body of their commentary.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1476127008100133

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
  • Helfat, Constance E.
  • Peteraf, Margaret A.
Venue
Strategic Organization
Published
2009-02
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
91-102
ISSN
  • 1476-1270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-315X
OpenAlex
W2151780527
Cited by
1,121
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 92 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Strategic Organization (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Innovation
Keywords
dynamic capabilities, theory development, competitive advantage, environmental change, firm performance, strategic change, organizational routines, management decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review