The Development of Dynamic Capabilities in Environments of Persistent Disturbances
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the creation and development of dynamic capabilities. In contrast to prior work, we argue that many environmental disturbances are repeated and not entirely new or stochastic. We argue that dynamic capabilities are developed in response to the more persistent aspects of these disturbances. Using the case study of the American automotive industry between 1965 and 2010, we draw a picture of the disturbances experienced by firms in this industry, such as labor disruptions, energy challenges, and economic cycles. We show inductively that firms first managed only to cope in the face of new disturbances by deploying existing dynamic capabilities that had been developed to address prior disturbances. Eventually these firms layered on new capabilities that improved the technical fitness of their dynamic capabilities. The interacting layers of capabilities that these firms built formed an architecture that further improved evolutionary fitness. This research contributes to prior work in dynamic capabilities, pointing to the importance of understanding how different types of environmental dynamism shape dynamic capabilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it