Search results

This paper reports on a case study research regarding the development of capabilities from a multidimensional social capital perspective. Case study research together with a multi-disciplinary literature study are the platform for further theory development on the related questions: “How do organisations build capabilities?” and “What are the antecedents of the development of capabilities?.” We start by describing the theoretical origin of our research problem by focusing on a triangle: (1) the resource-based view; (2) the network approach; and (3) the social capital approach. Following this literature study, we discuss the case study research design that was developed within an industrial company (B2B). We next present the findings and refine our initial tentative conceptual framework.

A firm's resources and capabilities can form the basis for performance differences among firms. The question is “how do firms face the challenge of acquiring resources and developing capabilities during their day-to-day activities in order to face competition?” Case study research involving day-to-day activities of a project-firm in a B2B context suggests that social capital – the sum of structural, relational and cognitive resources – built in networks increases the ability to face the challenge of resource acquisition and capability development even during daily activities. A communication network study clearly maps this influence of social capital. More precisely, dominant or powerful employees should be avoided. Next to organizational structures characterized by hierarchy, high and low communications are also not desirable. Moreover, too much trust can harm firms’ abilities to develop capabilities when performing day-to-day activities. Even a complete shared vision hinders firms’ capability development during their day-to-day activities. This study supports the negative impact of overembeddedness; shows the value of articles discussing the downside of social capital and confirms the paradox of embeddedness: overembeddedness as well as underembeddedness has negative implications for a firm's performance. Moreover, from the research results important managerial lessons can be deducted, such as (1) the basis for performance differences can be formed during day-to-day activities and (2) social capital management is a critical success factor in outperforming competitors. Therefore, managers should be aware of the potential value embedded in their day-to-day activities and relationships based on economic transactions. They can leverage their day-to-day activities and relationships based on economic transactions and consider them as sources for resources and capabilities that can be deployed in their search for a competitive position. Moreover, managers should not only pay attention to their financial and human capital but also to the social capital built in the firm's networks and in their employees’ networks. Social capital can influence – among others – divisional learning and divisional capability development.

The paper “Linking learning, customer value, and resource investment decisions: Developing dynamic capabilities” by Graham Hubbard, Angelina Zubac, and Lester Johnson suggests that strategic capabilities are developed when market learning processes are directly integrated into a firm's investment processes. Explicitly linking market learning processes and resource investment decisions is essential in building and maintaining competitive advantage. Based on a broad theoretical exploration, this paper presents six derived hypotheses about learning and dynamic capabilities development:H1Successful firms have higher levels of dynamic capabilities than less successful firms.H2Dynamic capabilities are more important and better developed in successful firms in dynamic markets than in mature markets.H3Successful firms learn more about customer value than do less successful firms.H4Managerial perceptions of how customer value can be created are more aligned in successful firms than less successful firms.H5Resource investment decision making is more aligned with market learning processes in successful firms than less successful firms.H6Firms in dynamic markets are more oriented to customer learning than those in mature markets.The paper argues that previous work on analyzing capabilities of organizations has not been directly linked to how firms actually learn, specifically about customers and about ways of creating customer value. Yet it is the process of learning about customers that is critical for creating value for customers and for targeting investments in resources that support the activities and processes necessary to create and deliver that value. The integration of learning about customers into resource investment decision processes is thus argued to be critical to the creation of firm value and to the development of dynamic capability in an organization.

Firms can (and often do) learn from each other. Benchmarking has become an accepted and increasingly widely practiced initiative for interfirm learning. Benchmarking specific capabilities and processes in one firm against another can help both firms’ managers identify strategic gaps in their capabilities and processes. More detailed forms of benchmarking may even suggest specific ways in which capabilities and processes can be improved. However, extracting significant learning from benchmarking with another company – while not unnecessarily revealing important sources of competitive advantage – requires a careful, balanced approach to managing a benchmarking process. In their paper “Limitations and challenges of benchmarking: A competence-based perspective,” Jörg Freiling and Sybille Huth develop a competence-based framework for managing benchmarking. While agreeing with the important potential benefits that benchmarking can bring to competence building, the authors point out a number of threats to a firm that may arise in a benchmarking process. In particular, the authors suggest that careful attention be paid to managing isolating mechanisms during benchmarking. Isolating mechanisms may bring a benefit by protecting strategic capabilities and processes from unintended discovery and imitation by either firm, while at the same time obscuring intended observations of each firm’s capabilities and processes that may defeat the basic intent of the benchmarking exercise. Careful management of isolating mechanisms should help assure that both parties to a benchmarking process will successfully navigate the three crucial steps identified by the authors in an effective benchmarking process: recognition, assimilation, and exploitation of new “best practices.”