Search results

Several manuscripts are adopting knowledge-based dynamic capabilities (KBDCs) as their main theoretical lens. However, these manuscripts lack consistent conceptualization and systematization of the construct. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to advance the understanding of KBDCs by clarifying the dominant concepts at the junction of knowledge management and dynamic capabilities domains, identifying which emerging themes are gaining traction with KBDCs scholars, demonstrating how the central thesis around KBDCs has evolved and explaining how can KBDCs scholars move towards finding a mutually agreed conceptualization of the field to advance empirical assessment.

The Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Core Collection database was used to extract 225 manuscripts that lie at the confluence of two promising management domains, namely, knowledge management and dynamic capabilities. A scientometric analysis including co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence network analysis and text mining was conducted and integrated with a systematic review of results to facilitate an unstructured ontological discovery in the field of KBDCs.

The co-citation analysis produced three clusters of research at the junction of knowledge management and dynamic capabilities, whereas the bibliographic coupling divulged five themes of research that are gaining traction with KBDCs scholars. The systematic literature review helped to clarify each clusters’ content. While scientific mapping analysis explained how the central thesis around KBDCs has evolved, text mining and keyword analysis established how KBDCs emerge from the combination of knowledge management process capabilities and dynamic capabilities.

Minimal attention has been paid to systematizing the literature on KBDCs. Accordingly, KBDCs view has been investigated through complementary scientometric methods involving machine-based algorithms to allow for a more robust, structured, comprehensive and unbiased mapping of this emerging field of research.

The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the canonical contribution of the classical theories of multinational enterprises (MNE) and complement them with congruous multi-theoretical lenses to a propose a meta-theoretical view for competitive advantage. The proposed framework is applied to fundamental questions of MNE, and exploratory insights are revealed.

This study sought to review the literature on various paradigms such as resource-based view, knowledge-based view, attention-based view, relational view, dynamic capability view and institution-based view to propose a meta-theoretical approach explicating the phenomenon of competitiveness.

This study proffers that the key to global competitiveness lies in building micro-foundational, multidimensional and multilevel multinational orchestration capabilities. The requisite orchestration capabilities are capabilities par excellence that explain: how organizational capabilities originate through the cognition of individual employees at the micro level; how individual-level abilities are amplified when they are harnessed through relational capabilities to form knowledge capabilities at the meso-level; and how the confluence of knowledge capabilities and higher order dynamic capabilities gives rise to heterogeneous firm-level knowledge-based dynamic capabilities that can be combined with institution capabilities to aggrandize the prediction of competitive advantage for MNEs.

The successful development of MNE competitiveness as a field of academic inquiry, brought about by an increasing amount of theoretical specialization, has come at the price of significant fragmentation of the overall scientific quest. The abovementioned paradigms and their underlying constructs have primarily been conceptualized in silos. The classical theories of MNE have been used a starting point to which complementary multidisciplinary views have been scaffolded to gain a more nuanced understanding of global competitiveness.

Fundamental classifications of knowledge may be measurable as factors of production and can reveal evidence of specialization between adjacent stages of production even in the presence of shared substantive knowledge. This study of aims to distinguish between, and empirically measure, relative reliance on fundamental classifications of knowledge at the individual level.

In this study, investment managers were asked in an online survey to weigh their relative reliance on tacit, codified and encapsulated knowledge in executing different investment strategies for diverse client groups. Measures of relative reliance on each fundamental classification of knowledge were derived from weights assigned by each survey respondent in a series of six questions.

Survey respondents provided reliable measures of their relative reliance on tacit, codified and encapsulated knowledge. Reliance on these fundamental classifications of knowledge is shown to differ between investment managers, depending on the investment strategies being used and client groups served. These differences were exhibited notwithstanding all the respondents sharing common substantive knowledge.

Measures of relative reliance on three classifications of knowledge were based on self-reported ratings rather than on objectively observed phenomena, making them subject to measurement error. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to observe relative reliance on tacit, codified and encapsulated knowledge in future studies.

The divergences in relative reliance on the fundamentally different knowledge-based factors of production were found in the presence of jointly held substantive knowledge, suggesting that fundamental classifications of knowledge are measurable and can provide evidence of specialization.