IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ttu/rebcee/37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influential Capabilities and Their Development in a Project Business: Results of an Estonian Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Mait Rungi

    (Tallinn University of Technology)

Abstract

Prior literature does not describe adequately the value of dynamic capabilities in a project business and does not follow their evolvement, there also exist several contradictions – the aim is to clarify these issues in small- and medium sized companies in Eastern Europe. A descriptive empirical work was conducted to track the capabilities and their development, for which the survey was performed. The best capabilities are worth imitating in a capability development and the worst capabilities need to be further investigated to decide how to improve them. Capabilities do not get better with time, as strong remains strong and weak remains weak, exploitation and exploration capabilities are evaluated at an equal level. Project related capabilities are more significant to profit than business capabilities. Generally, companies’ age makes the project and project portfolio capabilities worse.

Suggested Citation

  • Mait Rungi, 2012. "Influential Capabilities and Their Development in a Project Business: Results of an Estonian Survey," Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, vol. 4(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:ttu:rebcee:37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rebcee.eu/index.php/REB/article/download/37/36
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.rebcee.eu/index.php/REB/article/view/37
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberto S. Vassolo & Jaideep Anand & Timothy B. Folta, 2004. "Non‐additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: a real options‐based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(11), pages 1045-1061, November.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Engwall, Mats, 2003. "No project is an island: linking projects to history and context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 789-808, May.
    4. Tessa Melkonian & Thierry Picq, 2011. "Building Project Capabilities in PBOs : Lessons from the French Special Forces," Post-Print hal-02312571, HAL.
    5. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Prashant Kale & M. S. Krishnan & Jitendra V. Singh, 2005. "Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 25-45, January.
    6. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    7. Davies, Andrew & Brady, Tim, 2000. "Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 931-953, August.
    8. David J. Collis, 1994. "Research Note: How Valuable are Organizational Capabilities?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 143-152, December.
    9. Daniel Levinthal & Jennifer Myatt, 1994. "Co‐Evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 45-62, December.
    10. Paul E. Bierly & Fariborz Damanpour & Michael D. Santoro, 2009. "The Application of External Knowledge: Organizational Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 481-509, May.
    11. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    12. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    13. John Hagedoorn, 1993. "Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 371-385, July.
    14. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    15. Juha Uotila & Markku Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2009. "Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 221-231, February.
    16. Dovev Lavie, 2007. "Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(12), pages 1187-1212, December.
    17. Shaker A. Zahra & Harry J. Sapienza & Per Davidsson, 2006. "Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 917-955, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jorge Ferreira & Sofia Cardim & Arnaldo Coelho, 2021. "Dynamic Capabilities and Mediating Effects of Innovation on the Competitive Advantage and Firm’s Performance: the Moderating Role of Organizational Learning Capability," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 620-644, June.
    2. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    3. Alar Kolk & Mait Rungi, 2012. "Total Exploitation Orientation in Capability Development: The Cross-case of Google, Ericsson, Microsoft and Nokia," Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, vol. 4(2).
    4. Yuan, Chun & Xue, Doudou & He, Xin, 2021. "A balancing strategy for ambidextrous learning, dynamic capabilities, and business model design, the opposite moderating effects of environmental dynamism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Jingoo Kang & Sang‐Joon Kim, 2020. "Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 1083-1111, June.
    6. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Belderbos, Rene & Gilsing, Victor & Lokshin, Boris, 2009. "Persistence of and interrelation between horizontal and vertical technology alliances," MERIT Working Papers 2009-065, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Jun-You Lin, 2021. "Collaboration exploitation and exploration: does a proactive search strategy matter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8295-8329, October.
    9. Ferreira, Jorge & Coelho, Arnaldo & Moutinho, Luiz, 2020. "Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 92.
    10. Víctor Hermano & Natalia Martín-Cruz, 2020. "The Project-Based Firm: A Theoretical Framework for Building Dynamic Capabilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    12. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    13. Schriber, Svante & Löwstedt, Jan, 2015. "Tangible resources and the development of organizational capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-68.
    14. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    15. Hong Li, 2023. "Innovation and financial performance: An assessment of patenting strategies of Chinese listed firms," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 1693-1712, April.
    16. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    17. Pinho, José Carlos & Prange, Christiane, 2016. "The effect of social networks and dynamic internationalization capabilities on international performance," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 391-403.
    18. One-Ki (Daniel) Lee & Vallabh Sambamurthy & Kai H. Lim & Kwok Kee Wei, 2015. "How Does IT Ambidexterity Impact Organizational Agility?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 398-417, June.
    19. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    20. Erwin Danneels & Rajesh Sethi, 2011. "New Product Exploration Under Environmental Turbulence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1026-1039, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ttu:rebcee:37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anneli Kalm (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fettuee.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.