Discussion Post response
ashe.a
Influenceofdynamic.pdf
Economics and Business
______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2014 / 26
15
Influence of Dynamic Capabilities in Creating
Disruptive Innovation
Rūta Čiutienė1, Emil William Thattakath2, 1, 2 Kaunas University of Technology
Abstract ‒ The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the
influence of Dynamic Capabilities in creating Disruptive
Innovation. For doing so the concepts of Dynamic Capabilities
and Disruptive Innovation are reviewed. The criteria of an
innovation named Disruptive Innovation are obtained by
comparative study between the various innovation types. To
demonstrate the role of Dynamic Capabilities in creating
Disruptive Innovation, the Innovation Lifecycle is demonstrated
with respect to Dynamic Capabilities. The advantages obtained
from Disruptive Innovation and its superiority in comparison
with other types of innovation are also portrayed. Suitable
examples and case studies are presented to describe certain
situations. This paper establishes the required clarification by
using comparative methodology for obtaining the results.
Keywords ‒ Dynamic Capabilities, Disruptive Innovation,
Innovation Lifecycle.
I. INTRODUCTION
In today’s world innovative companies constantly face
challenges from their respective environments. These
challenges or competitions includes hyper-competition,
governmental regulation, recession, deregulation or even
disruptive innovation [1]. In addition, these innovative
companies are forced to follow the agenda asking them to be
sustainable and environmental friendly. In the midst of all this
every innovative company wants to maintain a healthy
competitive advantage in the market. To maintain this
competitive advantage, a strong requirement is seen to develop
the dynamic capabilities – essentially those adaptive capabilities
that enable an organisation to develop new capabilities better
fitted to the changing environment [1].
Most of the literature on technological innovation points to
established companies as victims of disruptive innovation, one
of the most influential streams in the strategy literature today
has developed the idea of dynamic capabilities which enables
established companies to thrive [2]. In the meantime, while
most of the innovative companies are thriving to create this
disruptive innovation in their market (as Christensen quotes:
“Motivation is the catalysing ingredient for every successful
innovation. The same is true for learning.”[3]), how to
maintain a competitive advantage while doing so, is quite a
difficult question to answer. As seen from the past cases, for
example, Ford’s introduction of automobile into the market
using disruptive innovation was a success while Kodak’s story
in digital photography was a failure although they were the
inventors of this. This article is mainly going to show that by
enhancing the dynamic capabilities of the innovative
company, maintaining of Disruptive Innovation to its
advantage is possible. The article will portray the literature
review of both dynamic capabilities, disruption innovation and
finally, how they could work together in particular situations
with the help of case studies. In addition to that the discussion
of a linear progression of different types of innovation with
respect to a firm and the differences between the types of
innovation in comparison with Disruptive Innovation along
with the Dynamic Capabilities applied is demonstrated. The
discussion of the main concept, features and the role of
Dynamic Capability in a company and its advantages is
demonstrated. The criteria and advantages of Disruptive
Innovation are also discussed.
II. DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES
It was primarily introduced by Gary Hamel in 1989 who
demonstrated the multinational strategic research leading to
Core Competences of the Corporation [4], although shortly
after, in 1995, it was described by Ikujiro Nonaka and
Hirotaka Takeuchi in their book on innovation strategy “The
Knowledge-Creating Company” [5]. Finally, dynamic
capability was referred to as “the capacity of an organization
to purposefully create, extend, or modify its resource base” by
Helfat [6]. Although in [7] it is explained that the capacity to
renew competences so as to achieve congruence with the
changing business environment is Dynamic Capability too.
This involves strategic management in appropriately adapting,
integrating, and reconfiguring internal and external organizational
drawbacks, resources, and functional competences to match the
requirements of the changing environment. In line with Helfat
[6] we use the term „resource‟ in its broad sense as in [8], and
hence it includes activities, capabilities, etc., which allow the
firm to generate the rent.
So, essentially looking at resource based view (RBV) in the
company’s perspective, Daneels [9] concludes that to
understand how a firm evolves over time the dynamic RBV is
kind of essential. In this case the firm over time tries to
continuously renew and reconfigure itself to survive in the
market while deploying its available resources.
Dynamic Capabilities are built rather than being bought in
the market [10]. They mainly consist of organizational process
or routines [6], [11] which were imbibed by the firm over time
and consequently used to reconfigure the firm’s resource base
by removing decaying resources or by recombining old
resources with new ones using new methods or ways [12].
This thereby shows that Dynamic Capabilities are viewed in
accordance with the path taken [13]. This path is shaped by
the decisions the firm has made in the past and the stock of
assets it holds currently [11]. Path dependency “not only
defines what choices are open to the firm today, but also puts
doi: 10.7250/eb.2014.015
Economics and Business
2014 / 26 ______________________________________________________________________________________________
16
bounds around what its internal repertoire is likely to be in the
future” [14]. Path dependency could be grounded in
knowledge, resources familiar to the firm, or influenced by the
social and collective nature of learning [14]. Learning plays an
important role in creation and development of Dynamic
Capabilities. Zollo and Winter [11] demonstrate that learning
is the base of dynamic capabilities and guides their evolution.
Learning is also considered as a dynamic capability itself,
rather than an antecedent of it. As such, learning as a dynamic
capability has been identified as “a process by which
repetition and experimentation enable tasks to be performed
better and quicker” [14]. In Zollo and Winter [11] authors
attempted to meld these two positions by explaining that
“dynamic capabilities are shaped by the co-evolution of
learning mechanisms”.
Helfat and Peteraf [15] emphasise that to qualify as a
dynamic capability, the capability not only needs to change
the resource base, but it also needs to be embedded in the firm,
and ultimately be repeatable. Dynamic capabilities are argued
to comprise four main processes: reconfiguration, leveraging,
learning and integration [14]. Reconfiguration refers to the
transformation and recombination of assets and resources, e.g.,
the consolidation of manufacturing resources that often occurs
as a result of an acquisition [25]. Leveraging refers to the
replication of a process or system that is operating in one area
of a firm into another area, or extending a resource by
deploying it into a new domain [25], for instance, applying an
existing brand to a new set of products. As a dynamic
capability, learning allows tasks to be performed more effectively
and efficiently, often as an outcome of experimentation, and
permits reflection on failure and success. Finally, integration
refers to the ability of the firm to integrate and coordinate its
assets and resources, resulting in the emergence of a new
resource base.
In accordance with the explanation of Dynamic Capabilities
they are referred to as the ability of the firm to purposefully
create, extend, or modify its resource base in congruence with
the changing business environment. In relation to this, the
aspect that has been discovered is, that there is a change in the
business environment and to obtain this competitive advantage
in the respective market Dynamic Capabilities are deployed.
But this can also be used to create an altogether new business
environment where this company holds the advantage due to
its core competence which is difficult to be duplicated by its
competitors. One of the successful and feasible methods to do
so is introducing Disruptive Innovation which can be managed
and created with the help of Dynamic Capabilities. This will be
demonstrated shortly in this article where some of the analysed
examples show how the obtained result can be achieved.
III. DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION
A. Concept of Disruptive Innovation
Disruptive Innovation was primarily introduced by
Christensen [16] where he defines it as “a process by which a
product or service takes root initially in simple applications at
the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market,
eventually displacing established competitors.” Disruptive
technology predates the term disruptive innovation.
Christensen changed the term to disruptive innovation so that
it would include services as well as products. Often in
literature the terms are used interchangeably. Despite the
widespread use of both terms by Christensen and other
academics, there is still some ambiguity surrounding the
definition of disruptive innovation.
One of the major flaws in Christensen’s primary model was
discovered by Tellis in [17]. He justifies that Christensen’s
definition lacks measurability and has little predictive value.
Christensen’s theory states that “Disruptive Technologies
Displace Incumbent Technologies”, but that is something
which can only be ascertained with hindsight. In today’s
market, most of the innovative companies harness
technologists and technology developers who would want to
assess the technology that they are currently working on has
the ability to become a Disruptive Innovation in the future.
Developers and marketers need to be aware of the
disruptiveness of their technologies in order to be able to tailor
their strategy around it. Market leaders also need to know
when technologies are disruptive as they pose a great threat to
their business model. Consequently, in relation to this
Danneels in [18] agrees that this lack of knowledge has to be
solved, and answers the question related to the assessing an
innovation of its disruptiveness. As a result Danneels puts
forward a complementing definition for Disruptive innovation.
He states that “a disruptive technology is a technology that
changes the bases of competition by changing the performance
metrics along which firms compete”. Although this literature
tries to solve this lapse it has not been completely done. The
most recent study was carried out by Gilbert in [19] who
defines Disruptive innovation as “a new technology that
unexpectedly displaces an established one”. The superiority of
Gilbert’s study and definition is presented as it highlights one
particular factor about what makes a technology disruptive;
the often-unexpected nature of the disruption and the fact that
established technologies are affected. But it still is missing
some key factors and it does not allow us to determine if a
new technology is likely to become a disruptive technology.
Again, it only really allows us to decide if a technology has
been disruptive after the disruption has occurred in the market
place. And it does not deal with the level of disruption.
Economics and Business
______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2014 / 26
17
As the criteria for an innovation to qualify as disruptive are
not clearly demonstrated it is hard to set goals or a strategy to
create one. As in further development of this paper it will be
demonstrated how Disruptive Innovation can be advantageous
to a company and it will be done by comparing the different
kinds of innovation including Incremental Innovation, Radical
Innovation, and Breakthrough Innovation to Disruptive
Innovation.
B. Comparison between the Different Types of Innovation
and Disruptive Innovation
Innovation as a whole has a very wide view and to make it
concise and express into assessable figures has been quite a
task. When considering it, different approaches to innovation
had been applied. Normally, to demonstrate an innovation the
most efficient method was to distinguish it among the different
types of innovation. Many of the innovations are distinguished
between the two extremes, they view innovation on
dichotomous scale. For instance, Michael Porter [20] talks
about “continuous” and “discontinuous” technological changes;
Tushman and Anderson [21] distinguish between “incremental”
and “breakthrough” innovation; Abernathy and Clark refer
[22] to “conservative” vs. “radical” innovations; and Clayton
Christensen [16] shows the difference between “sustaining”
and “disruptive” innovations. This helps to differentiate types
of innovation efforts but while viewing innovation in one
dimension [23] an effective demonstration is missing.
Fig. 1. Two-dimensional picture of innovation [23].
James Kalbach [23] has an explanation for this certain case.
He demonstrates innovation with respect to a two dimensional
scale which shows the comparison between the different kinds
of innovation.
The y-axis indicates the degree of technological progress an
innovation brings with it. Moving from low to high along this
line indicates improving existing capabilities, services and
products. The x-axis shows the impact an innovation has on
the market, also from low to high. This usually entails new
business models or reaching underserved target groups [23].
In Fig. 1, distinctly four zones of innovation can be seen.
The zones consist of Incremental Innovation, Breakthrough
Innovation, Game Changer or Radical Innovation and finally
Disruptive Innovation.
Incremental innovation involves modest changes to existing
products and services. These are enhancements that keep a
business competitive, such as new product features and service
improvements [23]. One of the most successful and recent
examples of incremental innovation is the iPhone. While
smartphones existed before Apple entered the market, it was
mostly the incremental innovation of a larger touchscreen, the
App store, ease of use and an improved overall experience,
which enabled the iPhone to be the first in making
smartphones mainstream. Apple then created a whole new
ecosystem which made the iPhone a preferred medium for
accessing the internet, sending e-mail, finding directions,
playing games, conducting online transactions and generally
becoming a central part of our daily lives. In 2013, it shipped
125 million iPhones. It is Incremental Innovation which has
brought a fundamental change in our behaviour and created a
market that will be worth $ 1.6 trillion by 2018 [27]. Although
Incremental Innovation has its inherent advantages, slowness
to reach growth targets before competitors, leading to a loss of
competitive advantage is considered to be its biggest
disadvantage. Incremental Innovation also falls under the
sphere of Sustaining Innovation. Sustainable Innovation does
not create new markets or value networks but rather only
evolves existing ones with better value, allowing the firms
within to compete against each other's sustaining improvements.
Sustaining Innovation may be also “discontinuous” [16].
Breakthrough Innovation refers to large technological
advances that propel an existing product or service ahead of
competitors. This is often the result of research and
development labs (R&D), who are striving for the next
patentable formula, device and technology [23]. These
technologies originate on the supply side of supply chain.
Conventional wisdom says ‒ listen to the market, but
breakthroughs come from labs that do not have what the
customer wants. These technologies are then pushed onto the
consumer. For example, Tim Berners-Lee, a software
engineer, created a network of interconnected computers to
share and distribute information easily and cheap in 1980.
This network developed into the Internet. Berners-Lee never
thought about what customers wanted when he created his
network. The interaction between research, marketing and
development groups can be detrimental. In general, most
marketing professionals view marketing as getting a grasp of
what customers need. They do not put emphasis on educating
customers about the usefulness of technology or creating a
new market. Therefore, R&D groups must make a marketing
group understand how useful the technology will be. R&D
groups must be visionary and lead the other groups in
productizing the technology. R&D groups should encourage
marketing groups to seek new markets for the developed
technology.
Game-changing/Radical Innovation transforms markets and
even society. This innovation has a radical impact on how
humans act, think and feel [23]. One of the most prominent
examples is Amazon's internet based approach to selling
books which enabled it to offer many more books than a
traditional bookstore, this ultimately led to a number of the
Economics and Business
2014 / 26 ______________________________________________________________________________________________
18
traditional book stores going out of business. As of 2010,
Amazon was the largest online retailer in the US [28]. The
biggest disadvantage of Radical Innovation is that the cost of
introducing this innovation into the market is very high, in
addition there is always a risk of low adoption rate of the
technology which can backfire to any company [28].
In reality there is a thin line between Radical Innovation
and Disruptive Innovation. This can be explained through an
example of Disruptive Innovation. The automobile was a
revolutionary innovation but it was not disrupting the horse
drawn carts industry in the very beginning. Later on the
automobiles became a luxury commodity for elite public.
When the idea of mass production of automobiles was
introduced by Ford in 1909, the mass production of cars
disrupted the horse drawn carts industry as this car now was
affordable to a lot more people. The main difference between
Radical and Disruptive Innovation is that a Radical Innovation
might not disrupt an existing market as the innovation might
be too expensive to be approached. On the other hand
Disruptive Innovation does not need to be based on a
technological innovation, for example, Microfinance did not
involve radically new technology.
Based on the literature review, it can be concluded that the
advantages of Disruptive Innovation over the other types of
innovation are:
In relation to Incremental Innovation, Disruptive
Innovation is at an advantage with respect to an entry
level company. Incremental Innovation mainly delivers
results to a company which has been established over
some time being an incumbent in that innovation, while
trying to modify their innovation at a certain pace. But
this technique cannot be used to attain a complete
advantage by an entrant, while it can use Disruptive
Innovation to achieve nearly the same goals as an
incumbent establishment.
In relation to Breakthrough and Radical Innovation, as
Disruptive innovation was or might have been a Radical
or Breakthrough Innovation to begin with it would have
been available to an elite class of customers in the
beginning. But once that particular technology starts
getting cheaper it is able to reach majority of customers
by dispersing the existing innovation. In this case the
company yields more as it lowers its risk of low adoption
rate and ensures stable income.
IV. USING DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES TO CREATE DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION
Here the description of how Dynamic Capabilities can be
used to create a Disruptive Innovation will be discussed. As it
was presented earlier, a firm following Disruptive Innovation
obtains higher gain as compared to using alternative
innovations. Meanwhile, there is a very small difference
between different kinds of the demonstrated innovation types
and in many cases the shift between these innovation types is
observed within a company. These shifts between the different
innovation types can be keyed together and form the
Innovation Lifecycle. Dynamic Capabilities play major role in
these shifts and overall linking of the Innovation Lifecycle. To
view how Dynamic Capabilities actually affect Disruptive
Innovation, the concept of Innovation Lifecycle will be
presented.
The description of the Innovation Lifecycle will be made
with respect to the theoretical analysis in addition to having an
evolution of a concept. Fig. 2 is a stepwise presentation of a
possible scenario that can occur to an innovative company in
the event when it created a new technology and thereby put it
to the market. Meanwhile, in accordance with the management
and innovation strategy of the company it can directly lead to
any of the steps and consequently following the Innovation
Lifecycle. In this explanation, the description of a common
example with relation to the Innovation Lifecycle will be
given. For demonstration purposes the example of
introduction of automobiles will be illustrated.
Fig. 2. Innovation Lifecycle with respect to Dynamic Capabilities.
Economics and Business
______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2014 / 26
19
In 1807, the invention of the internal combustion engine
coupled with a vehicle design by François Isaac de Rivaz was
a prominent innovation [24]. Although this was quite a
fascinating innovation, it did not directly hit the market as
people were at that time quite satisfied with the animal drawn
carts. This situation directly correlates with the first stage in
Fig. 2 which is the “Breakthrough Innovation”. The low
absorption rate of the innovation as well as the small
performance gap between the already available alternative lets
down this innovation in the market to begin with. As time
went by, application of Dynamic Capabilities occurred in the
technological perspective and by 1886 Benz Patent-
Motorwagen, by Karl Benz [24] car was regarded as the birth
of the modern automobile. The capabilities required here in
this situation were the Dynamic Capabilities to find efficient
solution and advanced product that could outrun the current
market. This, with respect to Fig. 2 represents the second stage
which is called “Radical Innovation”. The problem at this
stage is that, although the technology has an impact on the
market, because of the high price and scarcity of the product
this technology does not reach the majority of the public. In
our case the automobile was only available to an elite level of
customers who would not mind to purchase expensive
products. In 1908 the Ford T model was introduced. This time
Ford came up with the plan and criteria of the mass production
of vehicles. Through purposefully creating, extending and
modifying its resource base in accordance with the technology
and market, Ford was able to make automobiles cheaper and
more affordable to general public. In doing so the existing
market for animal driven carts were disrupted by the mass
produced automobiles. Ford was able to maintain a
competitive advantage in the market efficiently and got lot of
returns from a large population of customers purchasing their
vehicle. This represents the third stage in Fig. 2 which is
“Disruptive Innovation”. As time went by, the mass
production technique for automobiles was absorbed by many
other companies in relative competition with Ford and at this
stage, although Ford was still mass producing, the vehicle
competition was high. The amount of returns generated
reduced and they just started sustaining in the market. This
represents the fourth stage of Fig. 2 which is “Sustaining
Innovation”. Although Dynamic Capabilities were applied to
reach a comfortable income generating level, the competition
in the market devoid Ford to achieve as much as when its
innovation was a Dispersive Innovation. So, while it tried to
survive in the market, slight technological improvements to
the initial design were created in order to stay ahead in
competition. The engine design as well as the architecture of
the vehicle were changed. In addition to that managerial
innovation was introduced to efficiently maintain competitive
advantage. This level represents the fifth stage in Fig. 2 which
is “Incremental Innovation”. There is no assurity as to how
long the company can thrive in the market before a competitor
introduces a Dispersive Innovation and topples all gains
altogether. For example, Toyota emerged victorious in the
automobile battle when it introduced Dynamic Capabilities in
its supply chain mechanism there by introducing “just in time”
the mechanism to ensure higher quality as well as higher
production rate. The final step that happens is the creation of a
Breakthrough Innovation with the help of Dynamic
Capabilities of existing companies or borrowing an existing
Breakthrough Innovation and using it in their product design.
This example can be portrayed in introducing vehicles run by
fuel cells. Although the first modern fuel cell vehicle was a
modified Allis-Chalmers farm tractor in 1959, it was
developed and used by its inventor ‒ NASA, for powering
rockets. The first demonstration of the fuel cell car was made
by General Motors in 1966 and thereafter many vehicle
companies have tried to introduce commercial vehicles with
this technology. Currently this technology resides in the
second stage of Fig. 2 which is the Radical Innovation stage as
this technology is quite expensive for general public to utilise,
as well as the alternative fuel sources are still quite efficient
with respect to a common man use. In the near future the
expectation to build on the Dynamic Capabilities in the
organisation to create a Disruptive Innovation out of the fuel
cell technology is being aimed at.
While the whole Innovation Lifecycle proceeds, there is an
interesting relationship between Disruptive Innovation and
Incremental Innovation. Dr. Sarah E. A. Dixon [1] demonstrates
a Dynamic Capabilities Lifecycle. She demonstrated the need
for Dynamic Capabilities in adapting market by presenting the
case study of Toyota failing to adapt in accordance with their
deployment of capabilities over wide geographic regions, and
how EMI record label failed to cope with the online music
downloading trend with their audio CDs which were way
more expensive than the music downloads. By this she
explained that market turbulence affects all companies in that
market equally. She also pointed out that successful
companies combine the constant honing of their existing
capabilities to achieve operational excellence at the same time
as developing new capabilities with a better fit to a continually
evolving environment. Those new capabilities may be
associated with product innovation or management innovation;
with new market offerings or new business models [1].
As pointed out in Fig. 2, there is a Dynamic Capabilities
cycle between Incremental Innovation and Disruptive
Innovation. Dr. Sarah E A Dixon explains that this shift
between the innovations determines the firm’s failure, survival
or success. She demonstrates that to attain a Disruptive
Innovation is at an advantage in comparison to having an
Incremental Innovation strategy.
From the analysis in the Fig. 2 it can be seen that as
Disruptive Innovation is advantageous for a company, in order
to maintain it is important for Dynamic Capabilities to be
refined in the areas which direct to Disruptive Innovation. As
indicated in Fig. 2 in red, without developing and implying
Dynamic Capabilities, Disruptive Innovation cannot be
achieved. Because of this close difference between the stages
in the innovation, Dynamic Capabilities play major role in
maintaining the shift between the various innovations and
finally directing towards Disruptive Innovation. The example
of failure of Kodak when they confronted the arrival of digital
photography was analysed. Kodak did not ignore digital
Economics and Business
2014 / 26 ______________________________________________________________________________________________
20
photography, it can even be said that they invented it as the
first prototype of digital camera which was finalised by a
Kodak engineer (Steven Sasson) in December 1975. This
camera weighted 3.6 kg, its picture definition was 100 x 100
pixels, and storing of the image was done on an audio tape, a
process which took 23 seconds per picture; overall a good
example of a disrupting technology with lower performance
during its initial stages. Kodak did not ignore digital
photography in the subsequent years either; it launched several
professional digital cameras in 1990 and 1991 (one of them,
the Kodak DSC-100, had a 1.3 megapixel definition and
carried a price tag of $13 000) and a consumer-level camera in
1995 (Kodak DC40, which could be connected to a PC via a
serial cable). By the mid-1990s, digital photography was
clearly gaining ground; JPEG and MPEG formats had been
created in 1988, and several companies had launched digital
cameras. But rather than going full steam for digital
photography, Kodak, along with a few other major players of
the industry (including Fujifilm, Minolta, Nikon and Canon)
chose to launch a new system based on a digital film ‒ APS
(Advanced Photo System, launched in 1996). In 1999, Nikon
introduced the Nikon D1 ‒ a 2.74 megapixel camera at a cost
of under $6,000, a price some professional photographers and
high-end consumers could afford. There were also a full range
of more affordable cameras already available for sale in Japan
(in the $500 to $1000 range). In 2000, at a time it was
becoming clearer that digital photography would prevail
thanks to improving technical performances and lower prices,
Kodak was still promoting the APS (including during the
Sidney Olympic Games). But finally Kodak had to seize the
production of APS and finally failed in the photo market.
Digital photography was a Disruptive Innovation and the lack
of modifying its management techniques and implying
Dynamic Capabilities Kodak would have been capable to
shine in the turbulent market. Had it concentrated more on the
new technology which is digital photography other than being
an incumbent in the digital film by applying Dynamic
Capabilities, it had a possibility to still conquer the market.
As a result innovative companies would be at an advantage
laying their strategies to enhance their Dynamic Capabilities
directing to Disruptive Innovation (Fig. 2, red arrows). To
have a Radical Innovation transformed into a Disruptive
Innovation certain capabilities need to be refreshed and
dynamized. The particular Radical Innovation should become
cheaper and more available to a bigger circle of customers as a
result that innovation would compete with the currently
available alternative innovation. As it was a Radical
Innovation to begin with that particular innovation would have
some inherent advantages, because of the added availability
and lowered prices this innovation disrupts the competition,
innovation thereby transforming into a Disruption Innovation.
In order to efficiently execute this transformation the firm
constituted of that Radical Innovation should purposefully
create, extend, or modify its resource base in congruence with
the changing business environment. As demonstrated earlier in
this paper the mass production of automobiles is the best
example.
To have Incremental Innovation to be converted to a
Disruptive Innovation involves exploration of ideas and new
path creation, for example the redesign of the business model
or the invention of new products. This requires a combination
of organisational slack (availability of time and resources to be
allocated to things other than the day-to-day business
operations) and absorptive capacity (the ability to
conceptualise new ways of doing things, to understand the
changing environment and to be open to new ideas to acquire
new knowledge and think in new ways) [1]. Here the focus on
creativity and exploration for new ideas and on the utilisation
of these new ideas to create new developmental paths for the
organisation is given most importance [1]. For example
Google creates an organisational climate that is conducive to
exploring new ideas, at the same time having processes for
turning those ideas into practical user propositions that help to
reinvent their business [1].
V. CONCLUSION
Before commencing conclusions a few areas for future
research will be highlighted. As noted by multiple authors, the
challenge of conceptual research is to develop empirical
measures. The next possible step for this research is to carry
out the empirical study on the demonstrated contents. The
proposal to observe the working and implication of Dynamic
Capabilities for Disruptive Innovation to arise in a company
should be carried out. The analysis of the level of difficulty of
applying Dynamic Capabilities to achieve Disruptive
Innovation should be assessed in real time. After this the
discussion should be carried out based on the results.
In conclusion the description of Dynamic Capabilities was
presented as the ability of the firm to purposefully create,
extend, or modify its resource base in congruence with the
changing business environment. It was also discussed that
Dynamic Capabilities can not only be used to cope with the
changing business environment but also to introduce change in
the particular environment.
The main concept and criteria of Disruptive Innovation
were discussed. It was concluded that the exact criteria for an
innovation to qualify as disruptive is not clearly demonstrated
in accordance with previous literature, as a result it is hard to
set goals or a strategy to create one. To counter that the
comparative study between the different innovation types is
given to obtain distinguished criteria for Disruptive
Innovation. The demonstration of innovation with respect to a
two dimensional scale which shows the comparison between
the different kinds of innovation is made in accordance with
concept portrayal and examples. The advantage of Disruptive
Innovation over the other innovation types is made.
Finally the demonstration of the Innovation Lifecycle is
carried out where the example of the evolution of the
automobile industry is given. The use of Dynamic Capabilities
to achieve each of the innovation types is demonstrated and
the Dynamic Capabilities which are used to achieve a
Disruptive Innovation have been highlighted by suitable
examples. It is thereby seen that a company implying
Disruptive Innovation in their respective market is at
Economics and Business
______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2014 / 26
21
advantage and the Dynamic Capabilities are inevitable to
function in a company that wants to achieve Disruptive
Innovation.
REFERENCES
[1] Professor and Dean of Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University Business School in Suzhou, China, Dr. Sarah E. A. Dixon, “Failure, Survival or
Success in a Turbulent Environment: The Dynamic Capabilities Lifecycle,” Management Articles of the Year January, 2013. [Accessed
25.05.2014].
[2] Bernard, B., “Incumbent Curse or Incumbent Capabilities?” Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, 2013. [Accessed
27.06.2014].
[3] Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B. and Johnson, C. W., “Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns,”
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
[4] Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, G., “The Core Competences of the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review. May 1990.
[5] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., “The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation,” Oxford
University Press, 1995.
[6] Helfat, C. E., “Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations,” Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007.
[7] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Berkeley: U of California, 1992.
[8] Barney, J., “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management vol. 17, no. 1, 1991, pp. 99‒120. Web.
[Accessed: 12.06.2014]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
[9] Danneels, E., “The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competences,” Strategic Management Journal vol. 23, no. 12, 2002,
pp. 1095‒1121. [Accessed: 05.06.2014]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.275
[10] Makadok, R., “Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-based and Dynamic- capability Views of Rent Creation,” Strategic Management Journal
vol. 22, no. 5, 2001, pp. 387‒401. [Accessed: 15.06.2014].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.158 [11] Zollo, M. and Winter, S. G., “Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of
Dynamic Capabilities,” Organization Science vol. 13, no. 3, 2002,
pp. 339‒351. [Accessed: 25.05.2014]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
[12] Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A. and Sirmon, D. G., “A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Construct and Its Dimensions,” Journal of Management vol. 29, no. 6, 2003, pp. 963‒989. [Accessed 07.06.2014].
[13] Dierickx, I. and Cool, K., “Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,” Management Science vol. 35, no. 12, 1989, pp. 1504 ‒ 1511. [Accessed: 04.06.2014].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504
[14] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal vol. 18, no. 7,
1997, pp. 509‒533. [Accessed: 01.06.2014].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID- SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
[15] Helfat, C. E. and Peteraf, M. A., “The Dynamic Resource-based View: Capability Lifecycles,” Strategic Management Journal vol. 24, no. 10, 2003, pp. 997‒1010. [Accessed: 02.06.2014]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
[16] Bower, J., Christensen, C., “Disruptive technologies,” Catching the wave. Harv Bus Rev, 1995, pp. 43‒53.
[17] Tellis, G. J., “Disruptive technology or visionary leadership?” J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 23, no. 1, 2006, pp. 34‒38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00179.x
[18] Danneels, E., “Disruptive technology reconsidered ‒ a critique and research agenda,” Prod Dev Manag Assoc 2004, vol. 21, pp. 246‒258.
[19] Gilbert, J. B., Confronting disruptive innovation; 2013. pp. 280‒2. [20] Porter, M. E., “Technology and Competitive Advantage,” Journal of
Business Strategy, vol. 5, no. 3, 1985, pp. 60‒78. [Accessed: 05.06.2014].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb039075
[21] Anderson, P. and Tushman, M. L., “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change,”
Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 35, no. 4, 1990, pp. 604‒633.
[Accessed 11.06.2014]. [22] Abernathy, W. and Kimb, C. “Innovation: Mapping the Winds of
Creative Destruction,” Research Policy, vol. 22, no. 2, 1993, p. 102.
[Accessed: 09.06.2014]. [23] Kalbach, J., “Clarifying Innovation: Four Zones of Innovation,”
Experiencing Information. [Accessed: 10.06.2014].
[24] Eckermann, E., “World History of the Automobile’. SAE Press, 2001, p. 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/R-272
[25] Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C. and Schoenberg, R., “Should Acquiring Firms Pursue More Than One Value Creation Strategy? An Empirical Test of Acquisition Performance,” British Journal of Management
vol. 22, no. 1, 2011, pp. 173‒185. [Accessed: 13.06.2014]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00693.x
[26] Kishore, S., “The Power of Incremental Innovation,” Wired.com, 2013, [Accessed 13.06.2014].
[27] Tumati, P., “Types of Innovations.” Go for Funding, 2013, [Accessed: 15.06.2014].
[28] Gilliard, M., “Radical Innovation,” Innovation Creativity, 2014. [Accessed: 15.06.2014].
Emil William Thattakath received the Bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology Engineering from the SRM University, Tamil Nadu, India.
And is pursuing the Master’s degree in Technology Management in Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania. This paper is a representation
of his Master Thesis. He is an Administrative Assistant with the International
Relations Department of KUT. E-mail: [email protected]
Rūta Čiutienė received the Doctoral degree from ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania, in 2006. The topic of her doctoral
dissertation was „Coordination of Employees and Organizations Interests in
Career Development”. She is a Professor with the School of Economics and Business, Kaunas University of Technology. Since September 2013, she has
been the coordinator of the Project Management Master programme; since
2012 ‒ the manager of a scientific research group funded by the Institutional Scientific Research Programme „Challenges of Lithuanian economy’s long-
term competitiveness”. The fields of her scientific interest are: project
management, human resources management, human capital, career management problems.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of Economics & Business is the property of RTU Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
