Home » Business »Corporate »Phin Upham »Technology » Currently Reading:

Why Firms Win, by Phin Upham

September 20, 2011 Business, Corporate, Phin Upham, Technology No Comments

Why do some firms, like IBM or GE succeed while others fail?  In this essay Phin Upham explores some of the seminal points of view in the field of organizational theory.

There are many views in organizational theory which can explain why some firms are better at doing certain things than others, why some firms have a sustainable “competitive advantage.”  One source of advantage for firms can be argued to be a form of the dynamic capabilities view.  The so-called capabilities view, alone, is a very powerful group of ideas.  It explains, I think, much of the successes, failures, and sources of struggle that the business world travails.  The dynamic capabilities view adds some complexity – and it is especially valuable in times of uncertainly to change.  But its added value is, I believe, sometimes overstated by the authors of essays on the topic.  While it is important, a firm that has good capabilities and a fairly rational structure captures much of the competitive advantage that is relevant.  Dynamic capabilities, which adds on the “learning to learn” piece of the puzzle, as far as it goes beyond normal firm learning (it would be unfair to say that every firm, even a normally well functioning one, has a dynamic capability to learn from itself – this would debase the term into a truism.  So I limit it to well above average or explicit sorts of abilities to “learn to learn”), is a marginal improvement.

The capabilities point of view for organizations is underpinned by the work of Nelson and Winter (1982) “Organizational Capabilities and Behavior.”  This view begins with the level of the individual – suggesting that in individuals, skilled behavior is a product of routine, tacit knowledge and a product of past behavior/learning.  This essay relaxes some of the assumptions of classical micro-economics including inputs are homogenous, entrepreneurs are identical, firms optimize, etc..  In fact, Nelson and Winter argue, decisions in organizations may not be optimal, they may just be the descriptions that either personal experience or organizational memory imply.  Organizational memory, accessed and contributed to by individuals, exists in individuals personal and organizational experience, external memory (such as files), and the physical state of the plant itself.  Nelson and Winter generalize from this individual perspective (influenced by the work of Simon on organization and Kohneman and Tversky on heuristics) to apply this view of “evolutionary economics” to an organizational level.  So, the theory is build up from the micro to the macro level in such a way as there is both a conceptual parallel between the micro and the macro, and that there is also a causal link between the behavior of individuals in a firm and the nature and behavior of the capabilities of that firm.

Nelson and Winter go on to construct a picture of organizational routines that are in effect truces between organizational and individual motivations.  Organizational routines, which are build up as a confluence of both the individual skills and the organizational physical memory and physical equipment configuration, allow for organizational capabilities.  This view provides the foundation of the capabilities view and also generates some interesting consequences.  The first is that organizational routines (and thus organizational capabilities) resist changes, even ones that are for the better.  Secondly, this implies that the organizational capabilities are very hard to imitate by outside firms that attempt to copy a given ability.  In fact, even replication inside the firm can be difficult since as Dosi, Giovanni, Nelson and Winter – editors (2000) argue, not only are the attributes necessary to accomplish a skill unknown but the successful execution of the skill requires a complex interconnection of these attributes. This resistence to change is a soure of the the ability for capabilities to be seen as a competitive advantage as well.  It a fimr could simply modify itself to be like another fimr – routines and all – then it would not be a very log lasting advantage for theother firm.  But the path dependency and lack of simplicity of capabilities lends them much of the r power as sources of durable competitive advantage.

Capabilities, though, cannot be of the common garden variety if they are to be valuable.  Jay Barney (1991) argues that if capabilities are to confer strategic advantage, they must be of a special type.  They must do more than be useful, they ust confer a sustained competitive advantage.  This implies that other firms are unable to duplicate (at least in the medium term) the advantages that the capabilities confer.  In order for a resource (or capability, which can be seen as a sort of resource) to act as a source of competitive advantage, it must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and without common, imitable, or strategically equivalent substitutes.  Dericks and Cool (1989) elaborate further on how these firm level capabilities might work.  They describe how strategic asset stocks can be seen as flowing over time – either rising or falling.  Thus, many capabilities grow over time, they cannot be acquired immediately.  This is due to time compression diseconomies, asset mass efficiency, causal ambiguity, and a number of other factors elaborated on.  Lastly, Jan Rivkin (2001) describes how capabilities must not be too complex or they will be un-imitable within the company (the company cannot take full advantage of them) nor to simple, or every other competitor will copy them (a la White Castle in Winter and Szulanski (2000)).  So capabilities must be of a certain sort to be durable competitive advantages – hard to imitate, rare, non-substitutable, but able to be replicated (in fact, a non-replicable capability might even be a better source of competitive advantage then a replicable one – since it will likely be  more sustained, but it is also less valuable since it is less leveragable.).

Capabilities are made up of a web of interconnecting routines, skills, bases of knowledge, firm-specific assets, and physical setups.  They are based around tasks not products (Wernerfelt 1984) and reside at the firm level.  Strategy at the capability level involves extracting rents from rare firm-specific resources.  Competitive advantage in this view lies upstream from products in idiosyncratic and difficult to imitate resources.  Thus, a firm in this view must be aware not only of its situation but also of its intra-firm advantages (strengths) and disadvantages (weaknesses) and attempt to take advantage of these factors and gain a durable source of competitive advantage.

This foundation of capabilities is can be built upon and made more rich by the idea of dynamic capabilities which focuses on, according to Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997), the firm’s ability to achieve success by being responsive to change, build organizational mechanisms to encourage rapid and flexible product innovation, as well as management’s ability to “effectively coordinate and redeploy internal and external competencies.”  This approach focuses on how organizations renew their competencies, about the management and reconfiguration of competencies to achieve new and innovative forms of competitive advantage as it is about exploiting existing competencies.  Competitive advantage, thus, lies not only in the specific assets embedded in the form but also in the managerial and organizational processes which manage these resources, by the path dependencies and market positions taken by the firms

Henderson and Cockburn (1994) attempt to tease apart some aspects of dynamic capabilities.  They differentiate between component competence, or the competence embedded in local areas of the firm and architectural competence which they see as the competence that allows for the integration and flexible use of component competencies.  Pisano’s (2000) detailed study of how organizations manage their learned knowledge is a good example of the complex but vital thrust of dynamic capabilities.  Pisano argues that organizations received two benefits from doing an action – that of the product or result of the action, and also the knowledge that this production generated. If an organization only focuses on exploiting its resources, this second sort of knowledge is not fully utilized.  Thus, Pisano argues for the strategic use of action such that it will allow one to build knowledge bases and generate more capabilities that did not originally exist.

The idea that dynamic capabilities brings into the strategic framework – that both capabilities and the generation of new capabilities as well as the flexible combination of capabilities in response to changes in the market are vital – is extended by Collis (1994) who points out explicitly that since dynamic capabilities or “learning to learn” are, in some senses, the 2nd order of normal capabilities, why could we not take a 3rd and 4th order capabilities in order to gain competitive advantage.  He concludes that there will never be a final, ultimate source of competitive advantage since one cannot avoid infinite regression in capabilities.  Dynamic capabilities build on the resource based view and extend the literature into the sort of evolutionary and complex world that Nelson and Winter envision for strategy.  They lend an important component to the dynamic capabilities view – one which emphasizes how a firm renews and maintains capabilities – advantages – over time and through change.  We can see this idea of dynamic capabilities, with the idea of capabilities within this lending a large part of its power, being a powerful candidate for sustained competitive advantage.

Jay Barney’s to essays in this classes readings make a powerful argument about sustained competitive advantage.  The first, 1986, argues that any capability that is valuable must be acquired and thus it will, barring superior insight or luck, be as expensive as it is valuable.  So if a firm can gain competitive advantage from dynamic capabilities to, say, encourage information flow between R&D and manufacturing, and this advantage was well known, then all firms would acquire this ability up to the point where the cost of this ability was equal to its advantage.  Then this would not be a source of competitive advantage.  This argument is somewhat less powerful than it appears when applied to dynamic capability/capability mix since 1) firms are heterogeneous in their paths and abilities so a strategy pursued in one firm might not be possible or successful in another, so a valuable competitive advantage in one attribute might not be quickly devalued as others try to imitate of they cannot imitate (Diericx and Cool would agree in their 1989 piece).  Barney attributes the ability of a firm to gain competitive advantage through competency in this article to uncertainty while I attribute it more to heterogeneity of firms.  Barney moves closer to this view in his second article in 1991.  He argues that a resource must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and without common or imitable strategically equivalent substitutes.  He also claims that sustained competitive advantage is one which cannot be copied by others even over time.

Phin Upham has a PhD in Applied Economics from the Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania).  Phin is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He can be reached at phin@phinupham.com.

Read more by Phin on The Academic Ledger

Comment on this Article:

RSS Tech Digest World

  • Gamergate Bleeds Into Wikipedia January 30, 2015
    The Gamergate controversy, which centers on sexism and sexual violence in the video game industry, has made things hot for Wikipedia, whose arbitration committee has taken punitive action against some of the people involved in the debate. The committee decided to impose a complete site-wide ban on one male editor, with the handle "Ryulong," said Wi […]
    Richard Adhikari
  • Google Gives WebView the Cold Shoulder January 30, 2015
    Google has decided not to fix vulnerabilities in WebView for Android 4.3 and older, sparking heated discussions among developers. Those versions of WebView run on the WebKit browser. Fixing them "required changes to significant portions of the code and was no longer practical to do so safely," explained Adrian Ludwig, lead engineer for Android secu […]
    Richard Adhikari
  • SpaceX Video Stirs Excitement for Falcon Heavy January 29, 2015
    SpaceX on Thursday released a computer-generated animation demonstrating how the three Falcon 9 cores of its Falcon Heavy rocket, scheduled for launch later this year, would return to Earth. The boosters would land vertically at a selected site. The Falcon Heavy will be the most powerful rocket in the world, being able to lift more than 53 metric tons, or 11 […]
    Richard Adhikari
  • Canada Levitates Data from File-Sharing Sites January 29, 2015
    Canada's spy agency, the Communications Security Establishment, has been eavesdropping on 102 free file upload sites, including Sendspace, Rapidshare and Megaupload, which has been shut down. A CSE program called "Levitation" lets analysts access information on 10-15 million uploads and downloads of files from such sites daily, according to do […]
    Richard Adhikari
  • There's a GHOST in Linux's Library January 29, 2015
    Patches for GHOST, a critical vulnerability in glibc, the Linux GNU C Library, now are available through vendor communities for a variety of Linux server and desktop distributions. Qualys earlier this week reported its discovery of GHOST, a vulnerability that allows attackers to remotely take control of an entire system without having any prior knowledge of […]
    Jack M. Germain
  • Tech-Savvy Cubans Build Their Own Private Internet January 28, 2015
    Because Cuba's government makes it difficult for all but a handful of Cubans to access the Internet, people in Havana and other parts of the country reportedly have linked thousands of PCs to create an informal network known as "StreetNet," or "SNet" for short. The network was built with commercially available equipment. The PCs are […]
    Richard Adhikari
  • POS Terminals Rich Vein for Gold-Digging Hackers January 28, 2015
    Hackers are like gold miners. Once they find a rich vein for their malware, they mine it until it's dry. Point-of-sale terminals are such a vein, and it doesn't appear that it's one that's about to run dry any time soon. Following the success of the Target breach in 2013, the hacker underground was quick to rush more POS malware to market […]
    John P. Mello Jr.
  • Oculus VR's Story Studio to Create Cinematic Virtual Reality Experiences January 27, 2015
    Oculus VR on Monday unveiled a new project at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. Oculus Story Studio will produce movies in virtual reality. It presented its first example of the genre on Monday evening -- a 4-minute experience called Lost. Oculus, which was founded in 2012, was acquired last year by Facebook for a reported $2.2 billion. […]
    Peter Suciu
  • Wikileaks Steamed Over Google's Lengthy Silence on FBI Snooping January 27, 2015
    Google may have contributed to violating the First Amendment rights of three journalists working for WikiLeaks two and a half years ago, when it turned over to the FBI all their email, subscriber information and metadata. Google informed the journalists about its actions last month, saying that it had been unable to do so earlier due to a gag order. […]
    John P. Mello Jr.
  • Debian Forked: All for Devuan and Devuan for All? January 26, 2015
    A group of developers made good on their threats to fork Debian Linux late last year, after the community's leadership voted to replace sysvinit with systemd, making systemd the default init boot process. The Debian Technical Committee's decision spurred several key Debian developers and project maintainers to resign. Some of them formed a new comm […]
    Jack M. Germain

RSS Tech Crunch

  • Will Uber Convertibles Run Out Of Gas? January 30, 2015
     Uber just completed a $1.6 billion, six-year convertible debt raise via Goldman’s private wealth group. “But Robbie,” you say, “how do you even put a value on a convertible bond if there isn’t any stock to convert the bond into?” A great question, and one that has a number of significant implications. Since we’re all friends here, let’s go ahead… Read More […]
    Robbie Goffin
  • Review Of Uber’s Privacy Policy Shows Positive Signs, But Still Room For Improvement January 30, 2015
     Uber today released the results of a review of its privacy policies, which it had commissioned from independent law firm Hogan Lovells. The firm found that Uber had appropriate policies and disclosures in place and that it had invested significantly to enforce those policies. However, it made some recommendations into how the company could improve the way i […]
    Ryan Lawler
  • FIghting Sexism In Silicon Valley January 30, 2015
     The scenarios depicted in the Newsweek story were disturbing, but frankly they remained somewhat abstract for me until I taught my class at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business several hours later. Read More […]
    Patricia Nakache
  • Betaworks Launches Idiot-Proof Livestream Broadcast App Upclose January 30, 2015
     Sick of hassling with Google Hangouts? Now you can start broadcasting video live to the world with just one-touch through Upclose, the newest app from Betaworks. Upclose lets you follow people to get notified when they’re on the air, discover who’s livestreaming now, and then comment on their broadcasts in a chat room with other viewers on the web or mobile […]
    Josh Constine
  • Sandboxing And Smart Regulation In An Age of A/B Testing January 30, 2015
     The small drone crash at the White House earlier this week is just the latest in a series of reminders that when it comes to regulating new technology the government is woefully slow. Read More […]
    Nick Sinai
  • Gillmor Gang LIVE 01.30.15 January 30, 2015
     Gillmor Gang – Robert Scoble, John Taschek, Keith Teare, Kevin Marks, and Steve Gillmor. Live recording session today at 1pmPT/4pm ET. Click here for LIVE FriendFeed chat during show broadcast Gillmor Gang on Facebook Our sister show, G3, on Facebook Our sister show, G3, on ustream Read More […]
    Steve Gillmor
  • TC AppleCast 3: Apple Sells All The iPhones January 30, 2015
     It’s a very special episode of the TechCrunch AppleCast, as we’re joined by Jackdaw Research founder and Chief Analyst Jan Dawson, who offers some context around Apple’s huge earnings success reported earlier in the week. Dawson joins Darrell Etherington and Kyle Russell to explain just how Apple managed to sell 74.5 million iPhones in a single quarter, and […]
    Darrell Etherington
  • Google Now Gets Upgraded With Cards From Your Favorite Apps January 30, 2015
     Google Now, Google’s service focused on bringing you real-time information to your mobile device – including things like traffic updates, scores, stock changes, travel times, your flight status, and much more – is getting a notable update today. The company says that, going forward, the Google app will show users updates from their favorite apps, too. At la […]
    Sarah Perez
  • This Week On The TC Gadgets Podcast: Apple iPhones, Samsung Smartphones, And Legos! January 30, 2015
     It’s earnings season, which means we get a deeper look into the true popularity of the various gadgets on the market. This week, all eyes were on Apple as the company announced record-breaking quarterly results, including the sale of ~75 million smartphones. Turns out, Samsung showed similar sales figures by unit but at a lower margin per device, yielding l […]
    Jordan Crook
  • 13 Questions With Mark Cuban January 30, 2015
     Welcome to 13 Questions, a series aimed at bringing a human face to notable figures in the world of startups, hardware, and tech. Ever wonder how your favorite designer learned to love tech? Curious what’s on your favorite VC’s bucket list? Want to see the person behind the media hype? 13 Questions is here. This week Mark Cuban talks about his upbringing an […]
    Matt Burns

ABOUT US

The Tech Rundown is news curator and information aggregator. The content is curated by several editors and a vast social network built around great tech stories.

The Tech Rundown publishes original articles by some of the most accomplished tech writers working today, at lengths that allow them to be read in a single sitting. Featured articles typically range between 10,000 and 35,000 words and are available in digital form, with select titles also available as audio or print-on-demand books. They tackle compelling stories across the wide world of tech and tech-related news.

Readers can quickly discover, share, and discuss stories on The Tech Rundown with a community of fellow readers, gadget heads, and news junkies. The Tech Rundown also acts as a platform for up and coming tech writers, enabling them to connect directly with their audience.

The Tech Rundown - Covering Tech All Day and All Night