Developing dynamic design capabilities in software product development companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employs the theory of dynamic capabilities within the resource-based view (RBV) theory of the firm and introduces a new concept dynamic design capabilities. The concept of dynamic design capabilities in this study is defined as a set of design and development capabilities of a [software] product development firm such as, experiences, skills, metaphors, languages, shared understandings, routines, mutual adjustment, and organizational rules and procedures that is adaptive to the external changes and is creative in delivering superior values to the firm and to the customers. Accordingly, the study introduces a conceptual model, drives hypotheses, and questions whether the development of dynamic design capabilities in software product development firms has significant and positive relationships with the review of similar product designs in the market and the involvement of lead users throughout product design and development processes or not? To address the research question, measure constructs for dynamic design capabilities, review of similar product designs in the market, and the involvement of lead users and lead customers are designed and developed. To collect quantitative data for these constructs, an online survey is conducted on 52 software product development firms in Canada. The target population of the survey is small and medium-sized software product development firms that design and develop software products, intended for a mass-market of individual or organizational end users. To triangulate the findings of the quantitative survey with the findings of a parallel study, 4 case studies are conducted on software product development firms in Canada and Finland. Then, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method is employed to assess the scale acceptability and to test the research model and the hypotheses. The statistical analysis on the quantitative data and the findings of the case studies show that the development of dynamic design capabilities has significant and positive relationships with the review of similar product designs in the market and the involvement of lead users throughout the product design and development processes. This study, by introducing the new concept of dynamic design capabilities and empirically testing the implication of the concept to software product development firms, contributes to the body of knowledge in software product business and theory of the firm. The study also provides practical insights to practitioners and product development and project managers. \n\n\nKeywords: Theory of the Firm, Dynamic Capabilities, Lead Users, Dynamic Design Capabilities, Software Product Development Companies
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".