Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization and new information technologies mean that organizations have to face world-wide competition in rapidly transforming, unpredictable environments, and thus the ability to constantly generate novel and improved products, services and processes has become quintessential for organizational success. Performance in turbulent environments is, above all, influenced by the organization's capability for renewal. Renewal capability consists of the ability of the organization to replicate, adapt, develop and change its assets, capabilities and strategies. An organization with a high renewal capability can sustain its current success factors while at the same time building new strengths for the future. This capability does not only mean that the organization is able to respond to today's challenges and to keep up with the changes in its environment, but also that it can actas a forerunner by creating innovations, both at the tactical and strategic levels of operation and thereby change the rules of the market. However, even though it is widely agreed that the dynamic capability for continuous learning, development and renewal is a major source of competitive advantage, there is no widely shared view on how organizational renewal capability should be defined, and the field is characterized by a plethora of concepts and definitions. Furthermore,there is a lack of methods for systematically assessing organizational renewal capability. The dissertation aims to bridge these gaps in the existing research by constructing an integrative theoretical framework for organizational renewal capability and by presenting a method for modeling and measuring this capability. The viability of the measurement tool is demonstrated in several contexts, andthe framework is also applied to assess renewal in inter-organizational networks. In this dissertation, organizational renewal capability is examined by drawing on three complimentary theoretical perspectives: knowledge management, strategic management and intellectual capital. The knowledge management perspective considers knowledge as inherently social and activity-based, and focuses on the organizational processes associated with its application and development. Within this framework, organizational renewal capability is understood as the capacity for flexible knowledge integration and creation. The strategic management perspective, on the other hand, approaches knowledge in organizations from the standpoint of its implications for the creation of competitive advantage. In this approach, organizational renewal is framed as the dynamic capability of firms. The intellectual capital perspective is focused on exploring how intangible assets can be measured, reported and communicated. From this vantage point, renewal capability is comprehended as the dynamic dimension of intellectual capital, which consists of the capability to maintain, modify and create knowledge assets. Each of the perspectives significantly contributes to the understanding of organizationalrenewal capability, and the integrative approach presented in this dissertationcontributes to the individual perspectives as well as to the understanding of organizational renewal capability as a whole.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".