Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
distinction first introduced by Henderson and Clark (1990) and developed
within spatial systems by Phene and Tallman (2002), between
component
and
architectural
knowledge. The first encompasses specific resources,
assets, skills and technical systems that refer to particular constituents of
the organizational system rather than to the whole. Architectural knowl-
edge, in contrast, is related to an organizational system as a whole, which
through its institutional structure and routines arranges the components
for productive use (Phene and Tallman 2002). Such architectural knowl-
edge is region-specific or cluster-specific, has a path-dependent and evolu-
tionary nature, and is developed through relationships at both inter-firm
and intra-community level. It provides a common framework through
which the creation, adaptation, and diffusion of component knowledge is
greatly facilitated, thereby raising intra-regional absorptive capacity and
extra-regional linkages. As we will see at the end of this chapter, to global
actors such as MNEs, it is these knowledge features that will therefore lead
to the attractiveness of a particular region, vis-à-vis
of other locations.
4.3.2
Dynamic Capabilities and Learning
Since Nelson and Winter's seminal topic, contributions in the area of
firm-specific capabilities have proliferated within the resource based view,
within evolutionary economics, within the economics and history of tech-
nical change, and within strategic management. The dynamic capabilities'
framework has also been widely used to investigate how firms (Iansiti and
Clark 1994; Teece and Pisano 1994; Iansiti 1995a, b; Teece et al. 1997;
Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Teece 2000) and countries (Porter 1990;
Hobday 1996) create and sustain competitive advantage over time while
facing ongoing changes in the economic environment. The assumption of
this particular conceptualization of a firm's dynamic capabilities is that
firms act in a Schumpeterian competition context which is characterized
by winners and losers, and which is in a continuous disequilibrium. The
constant learning processes are the mechanisms by which capabilities are
accumulated and these determine the selection of winners against losers.
The dynamic capabilities idea takes into account the firm's specific
assets, which are the assets that are generally difficult to imitate or protect
by strong intellectual property rights. Likewise, it encompasses the tacit
elements of innovation such as skills acquisition, knowledge and learning,
all of which are represented by routines. Dynamic capabilities are thus
defined as the firm's ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and
external competencies to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et
al. 1997). As such, they reflect an organization's ability to achieve new and
innovative forms of competitive advantage (Leonard-Barton 1995).
6