This article was originally published in a journal published by

Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the

author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for
non-commercial research and educational use including without
limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s
administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without
limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access,
or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s
website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
 Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426 – 437

Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities:

py
A knowledge management perspective
Gabriel Cepeda a,⁎, Dusya Vera b,1

co
a
University of Seville, Management and Marketing Department, Ramon y Cajal, 1, 41018 Seville, Spain
b
University of Houston, Department of Management, Houston, 77204-6021 TX, USA
Received 1 December 2006; received in revised form 1 January 2007; accepted 1 January 2007

al
Abstract

This paper contributes to the clarification of the link between operational (how you earn your living) capabilities and dynamic (how you change
on
your operational routines) capabilities. In doing so, the article builds on a knowledge management (KM) perspective to capture KM processes behind
the development and utilization of dynamic capabilities and to examine their impact on operational capabilities. Empirical evidence is provided by
performing survey research with a sample of 107 firms in the information technology and communication industry in Spain. The article includes
conclusions and practical steps for managers with an interest in KM practices supporting dynamic capabilities.
rs

© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge management; Dynamic capabilities; Operational capabilities; Organizational knowledge

pe

1. Introduction dynamic capabilities with competitive advantage and argue that

in changing environments competitive advantage does not
In the last decade, the notion of dynamic capabilities as the necessarily come from resources (tangible and intangible assets)
ultimate source of competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997) has or capabilities (organizational processes and routines), but from
's

catapulted these concepts to the forefront of strategy research. the firm’s capability to continually create new capabilities
Nevertheless, in a recent review of the dynamic capabilities (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Teece et al., 1997). These early
field, Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson conclude that the field is definitions of dynamic capabilities become tautological if
or

still in its infancy and that the literature is “riddled with competitive advantage is incorporated into them (Priem and
inconsistencies, overlapping definitions, and outright contra- Butler, 2001). Furthermore, if there is always a capability
dictions” (2006, p. 917). The focus of interest has been diverse behind a capability, we face an infinite regress problem and it is
th

with different authors looking at the nature of dynamic impossible to identify the ultimate source of competitive
capabilities, their antecedents, outcomes, or associated pro- advantage (Collis, 1994). More recent definitions differentiate
cesses. Nevertheless, empirical work is still scarce and there has between operational (“how you earn your living”) capabilities
Au

been little effort to consolidate findings in a unifying picture.
Perhaps the largest source of confusion is the lack of
agreement about a definition of dynamic capabilities and the
interplay between dynamic and operational capabilities (Winter,
2003; Zahra et al., 2006). Early definitions tend to equate
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 954 55 44 33; fax: +34 954 55 69 89.
E-mail addresses: gabi@us.es (G. Cepeda), dvera@uh.edu (D. Vera).
1
Tel.: +1 713 743 4677; fax: +1 713 743 4652.
0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.013
and dynamic (“how you change your operational routines”)
capabilities (Helfat and Peteraf, 2003; Winter, 2003) and argue
that competitive advantage comes from new configurations of
resources and operational capabilities and not from dynamic
capabilities per se (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Makadok,
2001; Pavlou and El Sawy, 2004).
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the clarification
of the link between dynamic capabilities and operational
capabilities by building on a knowledge management (KM)
perspective to unpack the concept of dynamic capabilities. In
 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
doing so, we describe the KM processes associated with
dynamic capability development and utilization and their effect
on operational capabilities. We define knowledge management
as the formalized approach of managing the creation, transfer,
retention, and utilization of an enterprise's explicit and tacit
knowledge assets (Liebowitz and Wilcox, 1997; O'Leary, 1998).
A KM perspective of capabilities has important managerial
implications, considering the high levels of global corporate
spending on KM services in the last years (IDC Group, 2002).
KM processes and dynamic capabilities are closely intertwined
because the creation and evolution of dynamic capabilities
requires experience accumulation and knowledge articulation
and codification (Zollo and Winter, 2002). Furthermore, a firm's
operational routines form the foundation of its knowledge bases.
Because dynamic capabilities are about how firms develop new
skills and routines that allow them to compete, top managers'
definition of what the firm needs to know versus what it actually
knows is basic for the development of new routines. In our
model we describe how managers’ decisions about the breadth
and depth of organizational knowledge are at the core of the
renewal of operational routines.
This article makes three contributions to the literature. First,
on principal decision makers. Examples of dynamic capabilities are
by making an explicit distinction between (1) KM processes and
configurations of knowledge as part of dynamic capability
development and utilization and (2) new operational capabilities
as the output of dynamic capabilities, we help to clarify the
rs
nature of dynamic capabilities. Second, we test the link between
dynamic and operational capabilities through survey research
with a sample of 107 firms in the information technology and
pe
communication industry in Spain. Third, our sequential model
provides practical steps for managers interested in KM practices
supporting dynamic capabilities.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Dynamic capabilities defined
's
Many definitions of dynamic capabilities are available. Some
or
definitions are prescriptive; they assume that dynamic capabil-
ities are always good and are a source of competitive advantage.
For example, Griffith and Harvey (2001, p. 597) state, “A
global dynamic capability is the creation of difficult-to-imitate
th
combinations of resources, including effective coordination of
inter-organizational relationships, on a global basis that can
provide a firm competitive advantage” and Lee, Lee, and Rho
Au
(2002, p. 734) mention that “dynamic capabilities are conceived
as a source of sustainable advantage in Shumpeterian regimes of
rapid change.” The problem with these definitions is that they
are tautological; if the firm has a dynamic capability, it must
perform well, and if the firm is performing well, it should have a
dynamic capability.
In an effort to understand the true nature of dynamic
capabilities, several authors propose the need to differentiate
among the types of processes and routines available in firms.
Collis (1994) distinguishes between a first category of
capabilities, which reflect an ability to perform the basic
functional activities of the firm (e.g., plant layout, distribution
427
logistics, and marketing campaigns), and a second category of
capabilities, which deal with the dynamic improvement to the
activities of the firm. Zollo and Winter (2002) and Winter (2003)
also differentiate between operational (zero-order) and dynamic
(first-order) capabilities. Operational capabilities are geared
towards the operational functioning of the firm, including both
staff and line activities; these are “how we earn a living now”
capabilities. Dynamic capabilities are dedicated to the modifica-
py
tion of operational capabilities and lead, for example, to changes
in the firm's products or production processes. This classifica-
tion has increasingly been adopted in recent models of dynamic
capabilities (e.g., Helfat and Peteraf, 2003; Zahra and George,
co
2002; Zahra et al., 2006) and helps to eliminate the tautological
flavor associated with dynamic capabilities. As Helfat and
Peteraf explain, “Dynamic capabilities do not directly affect
output for the firm in which they reside, but indirectly contribute
to the output of the firm through an impact on operational
capabilities” (2003, p. 999). To capture this thinking, we adopt in
this paper Zahra et al.'s (2006) definition of dynamic capabilities
al
as the processes to reconfigure a firm's resources and operational
routines in the manner envisioned and deemed appropriate by its
product development, strategic decision making, and alliance
management (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000).
In summary, despite a lack of agreement about the nature of
dynamic capabilities, consensus is emerging about the need for a
hierarchy of capabilities, taking into consideration four critical
aspects: (1) Capabilities are organizational processes and
routines rooted in knowledge, (2) The input of dynamic
capabilities is an initial configuration of resources and opera-
tional routines, (3) Dynamic capabilities involve a transforma-
tion process of the firm’s knowledge resources and routines, and
(4) The output of dynamic capabilities is a new configuration of
resources and operational routines.
2.2. Knowledge management and dynamic capabilities
Because dynamic capabilities are organizational routines,
learning and KM processes guide their development, evolution,
and use (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). For example, repeated
practice is a learning process that helps individuals to understand
a routine more fully and do it better (Argote, 1999). Knowledge
codification into procedures and technologies also makes
experience and routines easier to apply (Zander and Kogut,
1995). The depth and breadth of knowledge searches, for
example, influence new product introduction routines (Katila
and Ahuja, 2002). Improvisation and learning by doing also
permit the creation and correction of routines (Crossan and
Sorrenti, 1997). In fact, trial-and-error learning plays a key part
in the development of technological innovation capabilities (Van
De Ven and Polley, 1992), and improvisation is useful in product
development capabilities (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995).
In one of the most comprehensive efforts to link knowledge
and dynamic capabilities explicitly, Zollo and Winter (2002)
propose a “knowledge evolution cycle” to describe the
development of dynamic capabilities and operational routines;
this cycle enables firms to change the way they do things in
428 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
pursuit of greater rents. The knowledge evolution cycle includes
four phases: generative variation, internal selection, replication,
and retention. In the variation phase, individuals and groups
generate ideas on how to approach old problems in novel ways
or how to tackle new challenges. The selection phase implies the
evaluation of ideas for their potential for enhancing the firm’s
effectiveness. Through knowledge articulation, analysis, and
debate, ideas become explicit and the best are selected. The
replication phase involves the codification of the selected change
initiatives and their diffusion to relevant parties in the firm. The
application of the changes in diverse contexts generates new
information about the routines' performance and can initiate a
new variation cycle. In the retention phase, changes turn into
routines and knowledge becomes increasingly embedded in
human behavior.
Authors such as Pavlou and El Sawy (2004) describe similar
processes when discussing how the deployment of dynamic
capabilities leads to new configurations of functional compe-
tences that better match the environment. Similarly, Kogut and
Zander (1992) describe “combinative capabilities” that allow
the synthesis of existing resources into new applications. In the
next section, we build on this previous work to propose a model
on
of knowledge-enabled dynamic capabilities.
3. Conceptual model and hypotheses
rs
Fig. 1 shows the sequential model of the link between
dynamic and operational capabilities. To prevent conceptual
ambiguity, we discuss this model in the concrete context of
pe
strategic decisions-decisions important to a firm's future
direction and success that are typically the responsibility of
top managers (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, 1992). This context is
ideal for our study because it is at the top level of the firm that
many decisions about capability building and resource
transformation are made (Carpenter et al., 2001). Eisenhardt
's
or
th
Au
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
and Martin (2000) have also highlighted strategic decision
making as a critical dynamic capability.
We start by focusing on the relationships depicted in the
dotted box in Fig. 1, which represents KM processes behind
the development and use of dynamic capabilities. KM
processes transform a firm's knowledge configuration or
knowledge base. Knowledge configurations can be defined
in terms of breadth and depth. The breadth of a knowledge
py
configuration denotes the multiple areas in which a firm has
skills and expertise; the depth of a knowledge configuration
refers to the firm's mastery of the knowledge it has (Zahra
et al., 2000). However, because some areas of knowledge are
co
more strategic than others, our definition of knowledge
configuration focuses in particular on the depth of knowledge
the firm has in specific areas we call “critical knowledge
areas.” Critical knowledge areas are connected to the key
success factors of an industry. For example, in the North
American computer software industry, the key success factors
are the establishment of efficient channels of distribution and
al
the provision of after-sales support. Knowledge and expertise
in these two areas are priorities for firms in this market. The
question managers need to ask themselves to identify critical
knowledge areas in their industry is: Given the economic
structure of this industry and customers' needs, what knowl-
edge do we need to be successful?
Once managers identify the list of critical knowledge areas in
their industry, these areas constitute the breadth of knowledge
the firm desires to achieve. With the breadth established, the
concept of “knowledge configuration” communicates the depth
of knowledge the firm has achieved in each of those critical
areas. The notion of critical knowledge areas is consistent with
Zack's (1999) description of a knowledge-based SWOT
analysis, in which firms can map their knowledge against
their strategic opportunities and threats in the industry to better
understand their points of advantage and weakness and identify
 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
knowledge gaps that need to be closed. We differentiate in our
model between the “desired” knowledge configuration the firm
should have given its industry and strategy, and the “available”
knowledge configuration the firm actually implements. As
noted in Fig. 1, our model builds on the knowledge evolution
processes described by Zollo and Winter (2002) in the sense that
the “desired” knowledge configuration results from the
generation of strategic alternatives and the selection of those
that will be implemented, while the “available” knowledge
configuration results from efforts to replicate the knowledge
needed across the firm and to retain it in the firm's KM
infrastructure.
The first step to articulate an organization’s desired knowl-
edge configuration is to let strategy guide decisions on new
initiatives and knowledge needs. Zack (1999), in describing the
link between strategy and knowledge, argues that every
strategic position is linked to some set of knowledge resources;
that is, given what the firm believes it must do to compete, there
are some things it must know. Strategy provides a framework
for KM efforts because the strategic choices firms make-
regarding products and services, markets, and technologies-
have a profound influence on the knowledge resources required
on(Cepeda et al., 2004). Thus,
for the company to compete and succeed in an industry
(Makadok, 2001; Zack, 1999). We focus in this paper on two
established strategy variables, which are also well-known
management tools – a firm's mission and value proposition –
rs
and argue that their explicit examination facilitates decisions
about the knowledge configuration the firm should pursue.
Campbell and Yeung (1991) define a mission as “an
pe
organization's character, identity and reason for existence”
and argue that it can be divided into four inter-relating parts:
purpose, strategy, behavior standards, and values. This holistic
view of missions brings together strategy, organization, and
human resource issues. Campbell and Yeung (1991) differenti-
ate mission from vision in terms of their time orientation. A
vision refers to a future state; it “articulates a view of a realistic,
's
credible, attractive future for the organization, a condition that is
better in some important ways to what now exists” (Bennis and
or
Nanus, 1985). In contrast, a mission refers to the present
purpose, strategy, and culture of the firm (Bart and Baetz, 1998).
Value proposition, one of the most widely used terms in
business contexts in recent years, is an element of strategy (and
th
of the mission) that communicates the fundamental benefits the
firm has chosen to offer to customers, conveying a clear
understanding of the customer's business priorities (Anderson
Au
et al., 2006).
Having an official mission or value proposition statement to
guide KM efforts is not enough. In many firms, missions are
only empty statements divorced from strategy and performance
(Bart and Baetz, 1998). However, a shared understanding and
acceptance of a mission can provide a rationale for action for
executives to generate alternative strategic initiatives. Each
alternative is associated with certain knowledge requirements
that need to be articulated in order to implement the initiative
(Beckett et al., 2000). For example, in case research at a
European innovation and technology center, Cepeda, Galan,
and Leal (2004) observe that the exercise of examining the
429
center's explicit mission helped the top management team to
articulate and evaluate a set of strategic projects and the most
desired knowledge configurations associated with them. Given
that the center's mission was the promotion of innovation and
research efforts to firms in the industry, executives identified
the need to achieve greater depth of expertise in the critical
knowledge areas of training and development, and industry
social networks.
py
In the case of the value proposition, in order to deliver the
benefits promised to customers, executives need to generate
alternative courses of action concerning the value-chain
activities the firm intends to perform. Attention to the intended
co
value proposition and assessment of performance gaps help
executives to decide on the depth needed in the critical
knowledge areas and to articulate the most desired knowledge
configuration that would enable the firm to deliver its promises
to customers. The managers of the European innovation and
technology center mentioned above reported that the exercise of
explicitly articulating or examining the value proposition was
al
very helpful in order to come up with the desired knowledge
configuration that would support its offerings to customers
Hypothesis 1. Executives' explicit articulation of the firm's (a)
mission and (b) value proposition influences the identification
of the desired configuration of critical knowledge areas.
Once a desired knowledge configuration has been identified,
the next step is to try to acquire or develop the knowledge
resources considered important so that they become part of the
available knowledge configuration. However, identifying
certain knowledge assets as desired does not guarantee that
the firm will be able to capture and disseminate them or make
them available throughout the organization. Access to knowl-
edge depends on factors such as awareness of its existence and
potential, the presence of channels for communicating knowl-
edge, and the absorptive capacity of the possible users (Buckley
and Carter, 2002). A critical element in the systematic
integration of new knowledge is the existence of a KM
infrastructure, which encompasses the people, technology, and
procedures the company dedicates to the management of
knowledge (Gold et al., 2001). Implementing a desired
knowledge configuration requires an understanding of the
infrastructure needed to support the acquisition, transfer, and
storage of tacit and explicit knowledge. It involves the
coordination and integration of multiple processes, technologi-
cal tools, and individuals with diverse roles in the organization.
Once executives articulate and codify a desired knowledge
configuration, the role of the KM infrastructure is to diffuse the
newly approved change initiatives to the corresponding parties
in the firm and to replicate the novel solutions in multiple
organizational contexts (Gold et al., 2001).
In Fig. 1, the available knowledge configuration represents
the actual knowledge assets the firm captures and retains; these
assets are available for the use of organizational members in
implementing the strategic initiatives. Managers face a con-
tinuous challenge in modifying their knowledge configurations
as needed. An existing KM infrastructure positively influences
430 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
new learning because firms that have invested in such
infrastructure have greater awareness about the value of
knowledge (Cepeda et al., 2004). On the other hand, an existing
KM infrastructure may also constrain the learning paths of an
organization (Becker, 2001). For example, guided by previous
knowledge investments, managers may think developing
strategic initiatives that leverage the current KM infrastructure
and the available knowledge configuration would be faster and
easier than changing the KM infrastructure and pursuing the
desired knowledge configuration. For a KM infrastructure to
positively influence new learning, it must be flexible in order to
adapt to the requirements of the desired knowledge configura-
tion, and effective in order to capture and disseminate the actual
knowledge configuration the firm achieves. We expect that firms
that have invested in a KM infrastructure-KM personnel,
technology, and procedures-will be aware of the path-dependent
nature of knowledge resources and make proactive efforts to
adapt their KM infrastructure and to update their depositories of
knowledge. Hence, we predict a mediating role for KM
infrastructure in the relationship between desired and available
knowledge configurations.
on
Hypothesis 2. he desired configuration of critical knowledge
areas will influence the existing knowledge management
infrastructure, which at the same time will influence the
“available” configuration of critical knowledge areas the firm
rs
achieves.
Finally, consider operational capabilities as the output of
dynamic capabilities deployment. Eisenhardt and Martin
pe
(2000), Helfat and Peteraf (2003), and Zollo and Winter
(2002) argue that the value of dynamic capabilities lies in the
configuration of operational capabilities they create. For
example, Collis (1994) is particularly explicit in making the
point that dynamic capabilities govern the rate of change of
ordinary capabilities—later called operational capabilities by
Winter (2003). Going one step further, Zott (2003, p. 98) relates
's
dynamic capabilities not only to operational capabilities but also
to firm performance when stating that “dynamic capabilities are
or
indirectly linked with firm performance by aiming at changing a
firm's bundle of resources, operational routines, and compe-
tencies, which in turn affect economic performance.”
Dynamic capabilities reconfigure the firm's knowledge
th
resources and routines and, consequently, change how organi-
zational members do things. The renewal of operational
capabilities in order to create or respond to market change
Au
prevents the obsolescence of outdated knowledge configura-
tions; in contrast, firms that are slow in shaping their operational
capabilities end up with core rigidities (Leonard-Barton, 1992).
Through knowledge transformation processes, executives
generate, articulate, and codify new available knowledge
configurations, which are the foundation for improvements in
the way firms operate. In other words, what the firm gets to
know changes what it can do. Hence,
Hypothesis 3. The depth of the available configuration of
critical knowledge areas impacts the firm's operational
capabilities.
4. Method
4.1. Sample and procedures
In order to test the model, the study uses the key informant
method to collect survey data in the information and commu-
nication technology industry in Spain during 2002. Companies
in this industry are characterized as knowledge intensive
py
(Starbuck, 1992) and are more likely to articulate and codify
their knowledge configurations in an explicit way. Our empirical
study involves three phases. First, we undertook an in-depth
literature review to increase our familiarity with industry-
co
specific issues, such as the key success factors and terminology
of the information and communication technology industry
(Wilcox King and Zeithaml, 2003). As part of this phase, the
present study includes an in-depth case study in one company in
this industry. The authors met with individuals at different levels
of management in an effort to identify the critical knowledge
areas of the industry and to articulate and codify the firm's
al
knowledge configuration and the elements of its mission and
value proposition. The output of the first phase was a list of
critical knowledge areas and a preliminary set of scales for
knowledge configuration, mission, and value proposition.
Second, we asked a panel of 23 industry and KM experts (12
in the information and communication technology industry and
11 in academia) to reflect on the critical knowledge areas that
may provide competitive advantage to firms competing in the
industry of interest and to provide suggestions on our scales. The
output of the second phase was a refined set of scales.
Third, the study includes making contact with ETICOM—
the Andalusian Association of Information and Communication
Technology. As of July 2002, 168 firms were ETICOM
members, all of which were invited to participate in the study.
Panel members selected this association as suitable to the study's
goals. A survey was sent to the firms’ CEOs and asked that it be
completed by the CEO or by another member of top manage-
ment. We assured participants that responses would be
confidential and that results would be reported in aggregate.
We received 107 usable surveys (63.8% response rate). Of the
firms in the sample, 77% have less than 50 employees, 15% have
between 50 and 250 employees, and 8% have more than 250
employees. In addition, 43% of the firms have a sales volume
under 600 million, 32% have a sales volume between 600 million
and 3000 million, and 25% have a sales volume greater than
3000 million. We did not find a significant difference between
the number of employees and sales volume of the firms in the
sample and those that did not respond to the survey; thus, non-
response bias did not seem to be a major concern.
4.2. Measures
The Appendix shows the questions in our survey, which also
provides participants with definitions of each construct. Our
survey has a combination of reflective and formative measures
(Fornell, 1982). Reflective indicators are determined by the
construct and, hence, covary at the level of that construct
(Hulland, 1999). In contrast, formative measures are expressed
 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
as a function of the items; that is, the observed items form or
precede the construct. Because the latent variable is viewed as
an effect rather than a cause of the formative indicators, these
indicators are not necessarily correlated (Hulland, 1999).
The study models operational capabilities as a formative
second-order construct with five formative dimensions. The
study uses Hall's scales (1992, 1993) to measure regulatory
(nine items), positional (six items), functional (five items), and
cultural (six items) capabilities. Hall's measures describe a
firm's processes and resources that help it to do more and better
than its competitors. To Hall's competitor-centered categories
the study adds the notion of knowledge-based value-creation
capabilities, which describe a firm's routines to extract customer
value out of its knowledge assets (Hamel, 2000; Rastogi, 2003).
By adding this fifth category we explicitly capture firms' efforts
to leverage knowledge as the source of most improvements in
customer value (Anderson and Narus, 1998). We developed a
four-item scale for knowledge—based value-creation capabil-
ities based on a literature review (Anand and Khanna, 2000;
Hamel, 2000; Rastogi, 2003). Participants assessed the degree to
which the operational capabilities were available in their firms.
The study models KM infrastructure as a reflective second-
order construct with three reflective dimensions: processes
(seven items), technology (four items), and people (six items).
Scales were adapted from measures developed by Davenport
and Prusak (1998), KPMG Consulting (2000), Consortium
GCDIT (2001), and Cabrera and Cabrera (2002). Participants
assessed the degree to which the various elements of a KM
infrastructure were present in their firms.
pe
In the case of the scale for knowledge configuration, the study
includes a literature review, a case study, and an expert panel to
identify a relatively comprehensive inventory of 20 critical
knowledge areas of firms competing in the information and
communication technology industry in Spain (Wilcox King and
Zeithaml, 2003). Participants were asked to rate the degree of
importance their firm assigned to each critical knowledge area
's
(“desired” knowledge configuration construct) and the degree to
which each of the critical knowledge areas was available or
or
implemented in their firm (“available” knowledge configuration
construct). Following recommended guidelines for the devel-
opment of formative constructs (e.g., Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer, 2001), the scale based on an assessment of
th
multicollinearity was depurated and the study retained six
items for each measure (see Appendix).
Au
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
Mean S.D.
1. Operational capabilities 3.3 1.27
2. Desired knowledge configuration 3.6 1.10
3. Available knowledge configuration 3.1 1.04
4. Mission 2.9 1.31
5. Value proposition 3.3 1.40
6. Knowledge management infrastructure 3.2 1.27
⁎ p < 0.05.
⁎⁎ p < 0.01.
431
The literature review, case study, and expert panel also
helped in creating a list of 12 elements describing the missions
and 11 elements describing the value propositions of companies
in the selected industry. Participants reported the degree to
which the items were incorporated as part of their firm's mission
and value proposition. After the multicollinearity assessment of
these formative scales, we retained seven items for each
measure (see Appendix).
py
Because the use of a single survey for data collection created
the potential for common-method bias, a number of steps were
taken to minimize bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Procedural
remedies are recommended when including formative con-
co
structs. Procedural remedies were applied for protecting
respondent anonymity and reducing evaluation apprehension
by ensuring subjects that there were no right and wrong answers,
improving scale items with the input of an expert panel and case
study information, and counterbalancing question order.
5. Results
al
5.1. Reliability and validity of the scales
on
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and correlations.
Composite reliabilities (ρc) of the reflective scales exceed the
benchmark of 0.70 recommended for early stages of research
(Nunnally, 1978).
rs
Table 2 shows construct-to-item loadings and cross-loadings
of the reflective measures. All item loadings exceed 0.70 and
load more highly on their own construct than on others. In
addition, all constructs share more variance with their own
measures than with others.
The evaluation of formative measures is different from that of
reflective ones. One examines the weights (Mathieson et al.,
2001), which represent a canonical correlation analysis and
provide information about how each indicator contributes to the
respective construct (see Table 2). Weights do not need to exceed
any particular benchmark because a census of indicators is
required for a formative specification (Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer, 2001). The concern with formative scales is
potential multicollinearity with overlapping items, which
could produce unstable estimates (Mathieson et al., 2001).
Results of a collinearity test of our depurated measures show the
variance inflation factor (VIF) of all items far below the common
cut-off of 10. In addition, we confirmed the validity of the
Composite reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6
– (–)
– 0.47 ⁎⁎ (–)
– 0.55 ⁎⁎ 0.70 ⁎⁎ (–)
– 0.24 ⁎ 0.41 ⁎⁎ 0.31 ⁎⁎ (–)
– 0.41 ⁎⁎ 0.50 ⁎⁎ 0.36 ⁎⁎ 0.40 ⁎⁎ (–)
0.86 0.46 ⁎⁎ 0.57 ⁎⁎ 0.60 ⁎⁎ 0.16 0.42 ⁎⁎ (0.83)
432 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437

Table 2 sample respondents by comparing each indicator variance with

Assessment of reflective and formative constructs the correlation between the two constructs (Fornell and Larcker,
(A) Reflective constructs: loadings and cross-loadings 1981). In all cases the indicator variance is higher than the
Existing KM infrastructure Processes People Technology correlation, which confirms discriminant validity.
KP 0.86 1.00 0.46 0.37
KP1 0.68 0.74 0.51 0.54 5.2. Hypothesis testing
KP2 0.62 0.81 0.31 0.45
KP3 0.64 0.76 0.30 0.47 The analyses include testing the hypotheses simultaneously

py
KP4 0.75 0.85 0.35 0.57
using partial least squares (PLS), a structural equation modeling
KP5 0.68 0.83 0.35 0.58
KP6 0.53 0.80 0.45 0.35 technique employing a principal component-based estimation
KP7 0.68 0.76 0.40 0.50 approach (Chin, 1998). PLS was selected due to the
PP 0.76 0.46 1.00 0.44 characteristics of our model and sample. The model uses

co
PP1 0.51 0.41 0.78 0.42 formative indicators, the sample size is relatively small (107
PP2 0.59 0.44 0.77 0.39
cases), and the data are non-normal. Other techniques of
PP3 0.71 0.45 0.76 0.44
PP4 0.51 0.40 0.76 0.30 structural equation models (e.g. covariance based model
PP5 0.59 0.41 0.79 0.51 performed by LISREL or AMOS) make it impossible to run
PP6 0.63 0.40 0.82 0.42 these models (e.g., Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). For
T 0.85 0.66 0.44 1.00 hypothesis testing, we use the bootstrapping procedure
T1 0.57 0.51 0.23 0.76
recommended by Chin (1998).

al
T2 0.72 0.53 0.33 0.74
T3 0.77 0.61 0.49 0.87 Consistent with Hypothesis 1(a) and (b), the paths between
T4 0.52 0.45 0.29 0.79 mission and desired knowledge configuration (β = 0.25,
on
p < 0.05) and between value proposition and desired knowledge
(B) Formative constructs: weights configuration (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) indicate positive and sig-
Desired Mission Regulatory Functional nificant relationships between these strategic variables and the
knowledge capabilities capabilities knowledge areas that firms considered critical (see Fig. 2).
configuration The findings include differences between the two types of
rs
MI3 0.19 RCD1 0.17 FCD1 0.22
K6 0.38 MI5 0.06 RCD2 0.15 FCD2 0.39 knowledge configurations (desired and available); these
K9 0.21 MI6 0.58 RCD3 0.15 FCD3 0.09 differences represent the knowledge gap between what firms
K10 0.24 MI7 0.05 RCD4 0.07 FCD4 0.30
perceive they need to know and what they actually know. Of our
pe

K16 0.31 MI8 0.04 RCD5 0.10

K18 0.37 MI9 0.31 RCD6 0.11 Cultural original list of 20 knowledge configuration elements, six
capabilities elements are consistently available in firms in our sample,
K19 0.26 MI11 0.74 RCD7 0.10 CCD1 0.17 including legal knowledge and knowledge about the competi-
RCD8 0.14 CCD2 0.16 tion, internal policies, management styles, the public sector, and
Available Value CCD3 0.15 market segmentation. Both knowledge configurations have four
knowledge proposition elements in common, including legal knowledge and knowl-
configuration
VP1 0.05 Positional capabilities CCD4 0.18 edge about internal policies, the public sector, and market
's

K4 0.42 VP2 0.12 PCD1 0.18 CCD5 0.17 segmentation. This comparison shows that while knowledge
K6 0.13 VP3 0.29 PCD2 0.16 CCD6 0.17 about suppliers and about knowledge documentation is
or

K10 0.44 VP4 0.54 PCD3 0.20 identified as desirable, these areas are not consistently available
K14 0.02 VP5 0.44 PCD4 0.17 Knowledge-based
in our sample. Similarly, knowledge about competitors and
value creation
capabilities
about management styles is available in our sample, but these
areas are not consistently identified as desired.
th

K18 0.31 VP7 0.12 PCD5 0.17 VCD1 0.17

K19 0.02 VP8 0.37 PCD6 0.12 VCD2 0.40
Adopting the approach used by Tippins and Sohi (2003), the
VCD3 0.37 presence of a mediating effect was checked by performing a
VCD4 0.36 competing model analysis, in which two substantive models are
Au

estimated and evaluated for significant differences. Fig. 2 shows

formative measures using the procedures suggested by Fornell
and Larcker (1981) and Mackenzie, Podsakoff and Jarvis
(2005).
To further validate the measures for “desired” and “avail-
able” knowledge configurations we obtained second responses
from 20 firms and tested the correlations between these two
scales using two sets of data (sample respondents and “second
respondents”). The results indicate consistent correlation ratios.
We also tested the discriminant validity of the “desired” and
“available” knowledge configuration scales using data from
the results of the competing model analysis. The first model
(direct effect) examines the direct relationship between
“desired” knowledge configuration (DKC) and “available”
knowledge configuration (AKC), while the second model
(partial mediation) examines the same relationship with KM
infrastructure acting as a mediator. The results of the partial
mediation model support Hypothesis 2. First, the partial
mediation model explains more variance in AKC than does
the direct effect model (0.55 vs. 0.47). Second, positive
relationships exist between DKC and KM infrastructure (H2a:
β = 0.57, p < 0.001) and between KM infrastructure and AKC
 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437 433

py
co
al
on
rs
pe
's
or
th

Fig. 2. Results.
Au

(H2b: β = 0.30, p < 0.001). Third, the significant relationship
between DKC and AKC in the direct effect model (H2:
β = 0.690, p < 0.001) diminishes in the partial mediation model
(H3c: β = 0.53, p < 0.001). Together these three points provide
evidence that there is a discernible mediating effect of KM
infrastructure and that the partial mediation model represents a
significant improvement over the direct effect model. The
partial mediation model explains a good amount of the variance
in operational capabilities (R2 = 0.30).
In addition, as predicted by Hypothesis 3, a positive and
significant relationship occurs between available knowledge
configuration and operational capabilities (β = 0.54, p < 0.001).
Finally, we performed the Stone-Geisser test of predictive
relevance to assess model fit in PLS analysis (Geisser, 1975;
Stone, 1974). When q-square is greater than zero, the model has
predictive relevance. In our model, q-square is 0.43.
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship
between dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities from a
KM view. In doing so, we unpack the concept of dynamic
434 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
capabilities by capturing the KM processes behind the develop-
ment and use of dynamic capabilities and testing their impact on
operational capabilities. We break up the KM processes behind
dynamic capabilities by focusing on the interplay between the
firm's strategic context (its mission and value proposition), the
articulation and codification of a desired knowledge configura-
tion, the use of a KM infrastructure to replicate and retain the new
knowledge, and the articulation and codification of the actual
knowledge configuration available in the firm. Our results
support this disaggregation of KM processes.
Managers' examination of their explicit mission and value
proposition influences their articulation of the knowledge
configuration that is more desirable. Although we focus here
on only two elements of the firm's strategy–its mission and
value proposition–other strategic factors that guide executives'
generation of strategic initiatives are the firm's goals, product
and market focus, and competitive intelligence about rivals,
among others. Our results show that an understanding of the
strategic context contributes to the articulation and codification
of the knowledge configuration needed to thrive.
As firms develop dynamic capabilities, the firm's KM
infrastructure plays a key role in managing the organization's
on
knowledge gap. Not all desired knowledge becomes available
knowledge. As organizational members pursue new learning,
resources such as knowledge search tools and knowledge
sharing practices are instrumental in creating an internal
rs
environment in which individuals can openly speak about
knowledge requirements and take steps towards the implemen-
tation of a knowledge repository that supports the firm's goals.
pe
The findings also show that the outcome of dynamic
capabilities deployment – the available knowledge configura-
tion – is the cornerstone of new operational capabilities. Firms
in our sample have diverse profiles of operational routines.
Nevertheless, the weights of the formative construct suggest
that functional (weight = 0.63) and knowledge-based value-
creation (weight = 0.57) capabilities are most important, fol-
's
lowed by regulatory (weight = 0.49) and cultural (weight = 0.42)
capabilities. Positional capabilities have a very small impor-
or
tance (weight = 0.01); however, this finding should not be a
surprise in the selected industry. These firms may consider the
use of positional assets, such as databases and networks, the
minimum requirements to be an industry player.
th
The results highlight the micro-processes through which
knowledge-enabled dynamic capabilities impact operational
capabilities. Firms in our sample build primarily on six
Au
available knowledge areas (legal knowledge and knowledge
about the competition, internal policies, management styles, the
public sector, and market segmentation) to develop and improve
functional and knowledge-based value-creation capabilities to a
greater degree, and regulatory and cultural capabilities to a
lesser degree.
7. Limitations, implications, and future research directions
Consider some limitations of this study. First, this research
takes place within one industry to control for industry effects
across firms. Nonetheless, this design affects the external
validity of our results. Since the inventories of critical
knowledge areas, missions, and value propositions are repre-
sentative of the information and communication technology
industry in Spain, the results are likely to be generalizable in
markets with similar characteristics. Some relevant features of
the industry we study need to be taken into consideration: (1)
firms are relatively small in size and young in age, (2) most of
the personnel hold a university degree, and (3) the technological
py
environment is changing continuously. Future studies could
compare our results with those in other industries and regions.
Second, the cross-sectional design does not allow us to
observe the short- and long-term impact of dynamic capabilities
co
on operational capabilities. Although our model proposes
sequenced relationships between knowledge processes and
operational routines, we measure all these constructs at one
point in time. Also, our measures do not directly capture dynamic
change in KM processes and dynamic change in operational
routines, but the positive association between KM processes and
operational routines at one point. This positive association is
al
suggestive of how a change in one variable is related to change in
the other variable. Given the dynamic nature of the processes and
constructs implied in our model, and the possibility of feedback
looks and circular relationships characteristic of the dynamic
capabilities perspective, our study will benefit from a more
longitudinal approach in order to understand more fully the link
between dynamic and operational capabilities.
This article makes three contributions to the dynamic
capabilities and knowledge management literature. First, by
differentiating between KM processes and knowledge config-
urations that are part of dynamic capability development and
use, and operational capabilities as the output of dynamic
capabilities, we help to clarify the nature of dynamic capabilities
and to bridge the dynamic capabilities and knowledge manage-
ment fields. Once agreement is achieved in the field about the
definition of dynamic capabilities as the processes that trans-
form a firm's operational routines, the next step would be to
examine the indirect impact of dynamic capabilities on
competitive advantage through the creation of new operational
routines. We invite researchers to consistently include opera-
tional capabilities in their models of the performance implica-
tions of dynamic capabilities; these efforts will help to eliminate
the tautological feel of dynamic capabilities.
Second, the study provides empirical evidence of the link
between dynamic and operational capabilities using a sample of
107 firms in the information technology and communication
industry in Spain. In doing so, this study helps to overcome the
lack of empirical grounding of the dynamic capabilities field
(Priem and Butler, 2001; Williamson, 1999). Furthermore, as
part of our empirical study, we offer a methodology to create an
inventory of critical knowledge areas in a given industry. The
process we followed included an in-depth literature review, a
case study of how one particular firm articulated and codified its
knowledge configuration, and input from an expert panel. This
method helps fill the gap in quantitative work in the dynamic
capability and knowledge management fields, in which
measures of organizational knowledge are scarce and often
rely on crude proxies.
 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437 435

Third, the results also shed light on tangible means for
managers to enhance their firm's dynamic capabilities through
KM initiatives. Winter (2003, p. 991) points out that there is
“doubt that deliberate efforts to strengthen dynamic capabilities
are a genuine option for managers.” This article's sequential
model provides practical steps for managers interested in KM
practices that support dynamic capabilities. Researchers often
describe dynamic capabilities in abstract terms. In contrast, KM
each of the critical knowledge areas by companies in our
sample. Future research sampling multiple knowers within a
firm will be helpful to test for inter-rater reliability and to
improve the internal validity of knowledge management
studies. Furthermore, the emphasis here is on finding
commonalities among firms in terms of the critical knowledge
areas they considered important and had available. The study
controls for knowledge breadth by creating a relatively broad

projects are part of the daily work of many organizations. By
bridging the dynamic capabilities and knowledge management
fields this article increases the tangibility of the dynamic
capabilities concept. In fact, the method here develops the
py
list of critical knowledge areas; then, the study assesses
knowledge depth by asking firms how much knowledge they
have available in each area. While commonalities exist in the
study, the depth and breadth of knowledge resources varies

inventory of critical knowledge areas can be used within one
single firm to make the mission and value proposition explicit
and to create awareness at all organizational levels of how the
firm's strategic context should guide what it learns. This
connection is not trivial in firms; in many cases strategic tools
such as the mission or value proposition are empty statements,
disconnected from KM projects. To some extent, the hypotheses
co
across firms competing in the same industry. Future efforts to
measure knowledge resources in an industry and across
industries will need to include novel ways to capture the
diversity in firms' knowledge assets and the views of
organizational knowers.
Acknowledgment

al
about the relationships between mission, value proposition, and
the desired knowledge configuration provide an example of a The authors thank Jean McGuire, Jose Luis Galán, Antonio
normative theory; while missions and value propositions are
on Leal, Wynne Chin, and the anonymous reviewers for their very
meant to drive decisions about a firm's knowledge configura- helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this
tion, this fact does not mean they will. paper.
Managers need to actively manage their knowledge gap
between the knowledge they need to have and the knowledge Appendix A. Survey questions
rs

they actually have. From a conceptual point of view the

distinction between desired and available knowledge config- Mission: In answering the next questions, please think of the
urations stresses the existence of knowledge gaps in organiza- elements that compose your firm's mission. Please indicate the
pe

tions. From a practical point of view, this distinction is helpful as degree to which the following items are important elements of
part of a methodology that guides managers to decide what your mission (Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly
knowledge they should have to support their strategy, compare agree).
that knowledge with the current knowledge they do have, and
make decisions about how to develop or acquire the missing MI1 Promotion of innovation initiatives MI7 Information services a
knowledge. MI2 Customer support services MI8 Industrial design services a
MI3 Outsourcing services for public MI9 Environmental servicesa
In addition, managers need to be aware of the role of the KM
's

sector a
infrastructure in closing the knowledge gap. Because past MI4 Training and development MI10 Organizational learning
investments in KM can both foster and impede the adaptation of MI5 Link between firms a MI11 Development of informal
networks a
or

a knowledge configuration, top leaders need to create a culture of

continuous learning, flexibility of the KM infrastructure, and MI6 Services for small businesses a MI12 Value-added services
a
critical assessment of the relevance of knowledge assets. As part Final items after depuration of formative scales.
of this assessment, the results emphasize the need for managers
th

to have an explicit understanding of how their critical knowledge Value proposition: In answering the next questions, please
can be leveraged to renew their operational (e.g., regulatory, think of the elements that compose your firm's value
positional, functional, cultural, and knowledge-based value- proposition. Please indicate the degree to which the following
Au

creation) capabilities when needed. More efforts to continue items are important elements of your value proposition (Likert
unpacking the black box of dynamic capabilities will greatly scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
benefit management practice.
Future research will need to continue developing tools to VP1 Provision of training to firms a VP7 Social responsibility a
articulate, codify, and measure organizational knowledge. VP2 Provision of information to firms a VP8 Respect of legal norms a
VP3 Provision of quality VP9 Long-term customer relations
Because knowledge entails scope and context, and is enacted certifications a
through the perspective of multiple knowers in a firm and VP4 Performance of projects and VP10 Innovation development time
captured through language, the choosing of the “knowers” who studies a
will identify what the firm knows is key (Von Krogh et al., VP5 Performance of IT diagnostics a VP11 Re-engineering and
1994; Wilcox King and Zeithaml, 2003). The study relies on the implementation
VP6 Provision of customer service
CEO or a member of the top management team as a key knower
a
of the company to learn the depth of knowledge achieved in Final items after depuration of formative scales.
436 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437

Desired knowledge configuration: Listed below are areas of VCD3: Globalization of local
knowledge and expertise. Please indicate the degree to which knowledge
VCD4: Conversion of
these areas are important for your firm's success (Likert scale: knowledge into new
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). strategic opportunities

K1 Customers K11 Employee development Knowledge management infrastructure: In answering the

K2 Business environment K12 Teamwork next questions, please think of the formal mechanisms your firm
K3 Products and services K13 Learning and innovation
has implemented to manage knowledge. Please indicate the

py
K4 Competition K14 Management styles
K5 Development of individual skills K15 Management by objectives degree to which the following items match your firm's
K6 Legal knowledge a K16 Knowledge documentation a knowledge management processes, technology, and human
K7 Internal procedures K17 Quality practices resource practices (Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 =
K8 Technology K18 Public sector a strongly agree).

co
K9 Suppliers a K19 Market segmentation a
K10 Internal policies a K20 Organizational climate
KP : Processes PP: People
a
Final items after depuration of formative scales. KP1: Existence of a system for the PP1: Personal attitudes oriented to KM
analysis and filtration of information are evaluated.
KP2: Processes to inform PP2: Internal training plan is oriented
Available knowledge configuration: Listed below are areas of organizational members of stored to generate and share knowledge.
knowledge and expertise. Please indicate the degree to which information and codification tools
knowledge and expertise on these areas is available in your KP3: Existence of tools to access the PP3: Employee selection considers

al
firm's culture, procedures, structures, or systems (Likert scale: stored knowledge the competences that encourage KM.
KP4: Existence of individuals who PP4: The creation of an internal forum
1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). update the stored knowledge of reflection, debate, and practice
on
encourages the enabling of idea
K1 Customers K11 Employee development exchange among experts with similar
K2 Business environment K12 Teamwork and complementary knowledge.
K3 Products and services K13 Learning and innovation KP5: Fast and easy search tools PP5: Compensatory policies are
K4 Competition a K14 Management styles a adequate to enhance education levels
rs

K5 Development of individual skills K15 Management by objectives and KM.

K6 Legal knowledge a K16 Knowledge documentation KP6: Effective systems for the PP6: Employees are encouraged to
K7 Internal procedures K17 Quality practices dissemination of knowledge participate in external events that
K8 Technology K18 Public sector a promote monitoring of environmental
pe

K9 Suppliers K19 Market segmentation a shifts, self-criticism, change, and

K10 Internal policies a K20 Organizational climate organizational learning.
a
Final items after depuration of formative scales. KP7: Quality control of the acquired
knowledge

Operational capabilities: In answering the next questions, T: Technology

please think of the processes and assets your firm uses to T1: Existence of efficient
non-computerized knowledge
perform its business. Please indicate the degree to which the
's

support systems (e.g., library)

following items match your firm's operational processes and T2: Existence of workflow
assets (Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). charts
or

T3: Existence of document

Regulatory Functional management system
RCD1: Trade secrets FCD1: Know-how of suppliers T4: Existence of electronic
RCD2: Contracts FCD2: Know-how of customers search tools
th

RCD3: Licenses FCD3: Know-how of distributors

RCD4: Patents FCD4: Know-how of partners
RCD5: Copyright References
RCD6: Trademarks Cultural
Au

RCD7: Registered designs CCD1: Perception of quality
RCD8: Utility models CCD2: Perception of service
CCD3: Ability to manage change
Positional CCD4: Ability to innovate
PCD1: Databases CCD5: Team working ability
PCD2: Reputation of product CCD6: Participative management
style
PCD3: Reputation of company
PCD4: Networks Knowledge-based value-creation
PCD5: Value chain configuration VCD1: Knowledge embedded
into new products and services
PCD6: Established distribution VCD2: Application of new
network knowledge to old products
Anand B, Khanna T. Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances.
Strateg Manage J 2000;21:295–315.
Anderson JC, Narus JA. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working relationships. J Mark 1998;54:42–58 [January].
Anderson JC, Narus JA, van Rossum W. Customer value propositions in
business markets. Harvard Bus Rev 2006;84(3):90–9.
Argote L. Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowl-
edge. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic, Publishers; 1999.
Bart CK, Baetz MC. The relationship between mission statements and firm
performance: an exploratory study. J Manag Stud 1998;35(6):823–54.
Becker M. Managing dispersed knowledge: organizational problems,
managerial strategies, and their effectiveness. J Manag Stud
2001;38:1037–51.
 G. Cepeda, D. Vera / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 426–437
Beckett AJ, Wainwright ERC, Bance D. Knowledge management: strategy or
software? Manage Decis 2000;38:601–6.
Bennis W, Nanus B. Leaders—The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row; 1985.
Buckley PJ, Carter MJ. Process and structure in knowledge management
practices of British and us multinational enterprises. J Internat Manag
2002;8(1):29–48.
Cabrera A, Cabrera EF. Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organ Stud 2002;23(5):
687–710.
Campbell A, Yeung S. Creating a sense of mission. Long Range Plan
1991;24(4):10–20.
Carpenter M, Sanders WG, Gregersen HB. Bundling human capital with
organizational context: the impact of international assignment experience on
multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Acad Manage J 2001;44:
493–511.
Cepeda G, Galan JL, Leal A. Identifying key knowledge area in the professional
services industry: a case study. J Knowl Manag 2004;8:131–50.
Chin WW. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling.
In: Marcoulides GA, editor. Modern methods for business research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. p. 295–336.
Collis DJ. How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strateg Manage J
1994;15:143–53.
Consortium GCDIT. Situación actual e impacto de la gestión del conocimiento:
Robotiker; 2001.
Crossan M, Sorrenti M. Making sense of improvisation. Adv Strateg Manage
1997;14:155–80.
Davenport T, Prusak L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what
they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.
Diamantopoulos A, Winklhofer HM. Index construction with formative
indicators: an alternative to scale development. J Mark Res 2001;43:
269–77.
rs
Eisenhardt KM, Martin J. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manage
J 2000;21:1105–21.
Eisenhardt KM, Tabrizi BN. Accelerating adaptive processes: product
innovation in the global computer industry. Adm Sci Q 1995;40:84–110.
pe
Eisenhardt KM, Zbaracki MJ. Strategic decision making. Strateg Manage J
1992;13:17–37.
Fornell C. A second generation of multivariate analysis. New York: Praeger;
1982.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18:39–50.
Geisser S. The predictive sample-reuse method with applications. J Am Stat
Assoc 1975;70:320–8.
's
Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH. Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective. J Manage Inf Syst 2001;18:185–214.
Griffith DA, Harvey MG. A resource perspective of global dynamic capabilities.
or
J Int Bus Stud 2001;32(3):597–606.
Hall R. The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strateg Manage J
1992;13:135–44.
Hall R. A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable
th
competitive advantage. Strateg Manage J 1993;14:607–18.
Hamel G. Knowledge strategy. Exec Excell 2000;17:7.
Helfat CE, Peteraf MA. The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles.
Strateg Manage J 2003;24:997–1010.
Au
Hulland J. Use of partial least square (PLS) in strategic management research: a
review of four recent studies. Strateg Manage J 1999;20:195–204.
IDC Group U.S. and Worldwide Knowledge Management Services Market
Forecast and Analysis, 2001–2006, Report no. 26729 (2002).
Katila R, Ahuja G. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of
search behaviour and new product introduction. Acad Manage J 2002;45:
1183–94.
Kogut B, Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organ Sci 1992;3(3):383–97.
KPMG Consulting. Knowledge management — research report 2000. KPMG
Management Consulting; 2000.
437
Lee J, Lee K, Rho S. An evolutionary perspective on strategic group
emergence: a genetic algorithm-based model. Strateg Manage J 2002;23(8):
727–46.
Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing
new product development. Strateg Manage J 1992;13:111–25.
Liebowitz J, Wilcox L. Knowledge management and its integrative elements.
New York: CRC Press; 1997.
Makadok R. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability
views of rent creation. Strateg Manage J 2001;22(5):387–401.
py
Mathieson K, Peacock E, Chin WW. Extending the technology acceptance
model: the influence of perceived user resources. Data Base Adv Inf Syst
2001;32(3):86–112.
MacKenzie S, Podsakoff P, Jarvis C. The problem of measurement model
misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some
co
recommended solutions. J Appl Psychol 2005;90(4):710–30.
Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
O'Leary D. Using AI in knowledge management: knowledge bases and
ontologies. IEEE Intell Syst Their Appl. 1998;13(3):34–9.
Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA. Capturing the “black box” of dynamic capabilities: a
missing link to the strategic role of IT in turbulent environments. Working
paper, Anderson Graduate School of Management. Riverside, CA:
University of California; 2004.
al
Podsakoff P, MacKensie S, Lee Y, Podsakoff N. Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003;88:879–903.
Priem RL, Butler JE. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for
on
strategic management research? Acad Manage Rev 2001;26(1):22–40.
Rastogi PN. The nature and role of intellectual capital: rethinking the process of
value creation and sustained enterprise growth. J Intellect Cap
2003;4:227–48.
Starbuck W. Learning by knowledge intensive firms. J Manag Stud 1992;29:
713–40.
Stone M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R
Stat Soc 1974;36:111–47.
Teece D, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strateg Manage J 1997;18:509–34.
Tippins MJ, Sohi RS. IT competency and firm performance: is organizational
learning a missing link? Strateg Manage J 2003;24:745–61.
Van De Ven A, Polley D. Learning while innovating. Organ Sci 1992;3(1):
92–116.
Von Krogh G, Roos J, Slocum K. An essay on corporate epistemology. Strateg
Manage J 1994;15:53–71.
Wilcox King A, Zeithaml CP. Measuring organizational knowledge: a
conceptual and methodological framework. Strateg Manage J 2003;24:
763–72.
Williamson O. Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives.
Strateg Manage J 1999;20:1087–100.
Winter SG. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strateg Manage J 2003;24:991–5.
Zack MH. Developing a knowledge strategy. Calif Manage Rev 1999;41(3):
125–45.
Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualisation, and
extension. Acad Manage Rev 2002;27(2):185–203.
Zahra SA, Ireland RD, Hitt MA. International expansion by new venture firms:
international diversity, mode of entry, technological learning, and perfor-
mance. Acad Manage J 2000;43(5):925–50.
Zahra S, Sapienza HJ, Davidsson P. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities:
a review, model and research agenda. J Manag Stud 2006;43(4):917–55.
Zander U, Kogut B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and limitation of
organizational capabilities. Organ Sci 1995;6(1):76–92.
Zollo M, Winter SG. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organ Sci 2002;13:339–51.
Zott C. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm
performance: insights from a simulation study. Strateg Manage J 2003;24:
97–125.