This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The research study has made it feasible to attend to a fundamental and unsolved concern in the development of fresh routines, that is, their multi functioning as organizational memory and as truces. According to Anon, ( n.d.), these routines have been examined in seclusion with more attention dedicated to observe the remembrance and cognitive aspects than to examining their truce dimension. When routines are considered as memory, the pattern of actions apparently replicates the characteristics of the information that has been stored. The patterning of action is expected to reflect the factors of the fundamental problem of diverging interests. In order to understand how routines develop, it requires an understanding of how the patterning enables routines to carry out the function of memory overlapping with the patterning that enables them to act as truces.
This paper shows that this overlapping occurs because development of routines is mediated by the development of systems of artifacts, which, within their own structures and relationships, reproduce the structures of problem solving and of intra-organizational conflict. This research has highlighted the different nature and characterizations of routines in varying circumstance as proposed by Anon, ( n.d.).
The first and the foremost aspect is the relation between individual skills and capabilities and routines that are followed. In organizations routines are mostly treated as collection of entities and not integrated set of activities which provides limited linkages at organizational levels. In reality the routines set a clearer picture of how activities within an organization are linked and integrated. These routines made by people embody the assumptions, expertise, and knowledge of those who actually develop them. It helps to regulate the appropriate expertise required to solve day to day problems.
Artefacts are known as the routines that are created by the individuals and these are vital links in creating relation between individual and routine of the organization. It transforms the experiences into capabilities a firm can achieve. There are certain issues that exist between the conceptualizations of the routines and the pattern of action of the routines that does not match the cognitive regularities as stated by Anon, ( n.d.). This is due to the official representation of routines which is action bounded. On the other hand, the routines that are followed by individuals are in response to the changing needs of the organization which may deviate from the formal description of routine. The reconciliation of routines would be an important aspect of any research. By examining the specific nature of occupation there are some boundary objects to the analysis. It reintegrates the conflicts into analysis of problem solving. Therefore, moving from organizational literature to the resolution of conflicts.
However, this research also has some limitations which also offer opportunities for extensive research. Organisational routines have problem solving capabilities that require integration among different activities and tasks in an organization. An extensive research may help in developing new and modern processes and routines that will enhance organization performances.
This research paper has examined the mechanisms through which entities develop dynamic capabilities. According to Zollo & Winter (2007), these mechanisms reflect the experience, knowledge accumulation and knowledge codification processes that restructure and redesign organizational routines. These three mechanisms originate dynamic capabilities. A combination of learning behaviours is adopted that are constituted by partial automated accumulation of experience, knowledge articulation and codification. The purpose of this research has been to develop theoretical model of dynamic capability and effectiveness of capability building keeping in mind the implications of economic changes.
Transformation and improvements in organizational knowledge and competencies have increased the degree of success organizations have. It has major impacts on organizational theory and strategic management. It is important to understand how organizational capabilities evolve over time and come into existence. Competencies of the organizations have their own growth and obsolescence which organizations must not overlook. Organisations with its own set of routines and integrated operations evolve on the basis of feedbacks based on organizational performances. In order to address to the rapidly changing environments the concept of dynamic capabilities defines the firm's ability to integrate and build both internal and external competencies.
Organisational routines are a pattern of behaviours that portray organisation's response to internal and external factors. On receiving of an order from a customer, a decision is made on how it will be executed. What is required, how will it be initiated and what process will be implemented. All these decisions are based on past experience and knowledge. According to Zollo & Winter (2007), there is execution of known processes and procedures called the operational routines or necessary changes that are required may be identified which is called search or learning routine. Both these routines are affected by changes in the dynamic environment. It is necessary for organisational routines to be effective but superior organizational routines are always more beneficial. However, adequate routines are operational as well as a source of advantage that helps organization to respond to environmental changes.
Knowledge evolution is an understanding and comprehensive information of how organizational tasks are executed. It changes due to the external factors that include competitors, geographical changes, climatic changes and scientific discoveries. Apart from external factors, the internal factors like information derived from within the organizations also have a great impact on the knowledge.
According to Zollo & Winter (2007), dynamic capabilities allow organizations to produce and offer innovative products through an efficient and effective process that is flexible and responsive to change. It helps organizations to develop systematic routines through experience, knowledge and processes that reflect knowledge. Codification of processes is needed when an organization relates to an unfamiliar process. Codification processes imply past experiences.
There are potential benefits that exist in the development of purposes that can be derived from the competencies that evolve within an organization. There is little research on the characteristics of the organizational structure and culture is integrated in the execution of tasks that would determine the effectiveness of the organization.
Organisational capabilities are developed in order to stay competitive in a dynamic environment. According to Schienstock, G. (2009), organisations have the expertise which enables them to respond to issues occurring in the organization due to the changes in the environment affecting business practices. Organisational change is a continuous and an open ended process of a company's development. This is what organizational capability refers to. However, there are complexities faced by organizations and core capabilities of firms help them to remain competent.
The purpose of this research is to support the stance that firms need to develop capabilities to deal with social problems and cannot only focus on their technical capabilities. Moreover, based on knowledge process there have been attempts made to develop concept of organizational capabilities. In addition, options of organizational entrenchment of the knowledge-based capabilities have been highlighted. It has been argued by Schienstock, G. (2009) that organizational capabilities are of utmost importance for some firms. And economic success is dependent on firm's organizational capabilities. Improvements on this give rise to innovation. Nonetheless paying attention on the distribution of finest practice will barely produce rewarding results. Instead, public innovation policy must take into account the diversity of firms and their specific needs.
The customary organizational research based on a structural approach symbolizes a static perspective. Fixed structural arrangements have been put into practice to supply long-term goal. However, due to the fact that together with the globalization of the economy, the organizational environment becomes more and more intricate and dynamic companies are constantly encountered with new troubles. Such a condition necessitates a new organizational regeneration approach. Organizations can no longer plan at attaining long-term organizational solutions by setting up certain organizational structures in a top-down style. Instead, they need to focus on the formation and constant progress of firm specific organizational capabilities that facilitate them to manage organizational problems in a much more responsive way.
On the other hand, the appliance of the notion of organizational capabilities is not undisputed in experimental research as stated by Schienstock, G. (2009). In the research it has been stated that there are other associated ideas that are not prominently and vividly eminent from the concept of capability. For instance, core competencies or organizational capacities. Moreover, the vast number of organizational capabilities or core competencies mentioned in the research specifies that scholars have not been able to vividly itemize many common organizational problems companies have to deal with and for which they have to come up with dynamic capabilities. It has been questionable, whether it is possible to recognize general problem solving capabilities independent of the explicit problems which do not lack substance.
Key findings of this research include knowledge process that is required in the development of routine, learning through experiences that enable organizations to make better decisions and lastly, the organizational capabilities which allows them to respond to the dynamic environment. Organizational capabilities have been studied, researched and analyzed in a broad spectrum over a diverse setting. There has been a thorough empirical and theoretical research pertaining to organizational structures and capabilities. However, Goldstein, D. & Hilliard, R. (2004) states that the degree or extent to which experience and activity contributes towards capabilities largely remains unidentified or unexplored. Firms or organizations can catalog various types and forms of capabilities such as managerial and technological, by carrying an in-depth research as well as by proposing hypothesis for various situations. Organizational capabilities are defined as a firm's aptitude, competence or ability to arrange or employ given resources in a proficient manner beneficial for the organization or firm.
However the question that arises is, from where does this ability come from? The answer to which can be derived from Loasby's proclamation that is, capabilities are the by-products of previous activities. Additionally, the repeated behavior patterns within an organization give birth to the various types of capabilities which are essential for the firm as stated by Goldstein, D. & Hilliard, R. (2004). Much of the empirical investigation and research literature pertaining to organizational capabilities has encountered the problem or issue of tautology, i.e. the difficulty or impediment that occurs in measuring capabilities independent of the result or outcome they yield. Capabilities tend to help and are beneficial for the firm as long as long as they help build routines in an organization. Moreover, different firms have different styles or types of capabilities for organizational learning.
Organizations change their pattern of behavior, decision-making strategies and perspectives by changing or transforming their routines. In this case, dynamic capabilities are essential for the well functioning of the organization. It is defined as an organization's eligibility to acquire new ends, innovation, diversification and expansion considering the existential market stance or position. Static capabilities on the other hand is gathered through experience or acquiring knowledge and understanding of something through learning by enacting or doing that particular thing. In manufacturing, learning can only occur through experience in context of the LBD hypothesis and literature. One of the most vital finding of the LBD literature states that there are many differences and/or discrepancies within firms and organizations regarding the strength and swiftness of organizational learning. There may be distinguished dynamic capabilities in different organizations as well as various processes which formulate or occur through organizational integration.
According to Goldstein, D. & Hilliard, R. (2004), an organization may experience internal integration through expedient management and planning. In this case, each year's overall performance is evaluated through variance analysis and other identical strategies with the help of the two components mentioned above that is, planning and management. Each firm or organization needs to learn, develop and construct new capabilities over time in order to ensure a smoother functioning of the organization. Also they must be able to set and implement such routines for the firm which would boost the proficiency and efficiency rate/level of the organization. Furthermore these routines and capabilities must be empirically investigated or verified through extensive organizational research in order to identify the best and most beneficial ones which could then be implemented in the organization in the foreseeable future.