Gajendran, T; Brewer, G; Gudergan, S and Sankaran, S (2014) Deconstructing dynamic capabilities: The role of cognitive and organizational routines in the innovation process. Construction Management and Economics, 32(3), pp. 246-261. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A better understanding of innovation processes might lead to productivity improvements. By focusing on a specific, economically relevant sector (construction) and on a specific type of firm (small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs), the dynamic capabilities framework is extended by clarifying the roles of cognitive and organizational routines in organizational innovation processes. Insights generated from an in-depth case study of a medium-sized construction firm reveal that dynamic capabilities might diminish the relevance of an explicit innovation focus, because such capabilities have the potential to trigger emergent, incremental innovations. Accordingly, for construction SMEs, a development, rather than research, mode of innovation appears relatively more critical, as manifested in conscious cognitive routines and functional/integrative organizational routines.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cognitive routines; competitiveness; dynamic capabilities; innovation; organizational routines |
| Index terms: | routine, competitiveness, dynamic capability, construction firm, productivity, organizational innovation, case study, organizational routine |
| Subjects: | management, sociology, market analysis, business, organization, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Organizational Design, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here