Exploring the Link of Real Options Theory with Dynamic Capabilities Framework in Open Innovation-Type Merger and Acquisition Deals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is well established that acquisition-based dynamic capabilities have important consequences for merger and acquisition (M&A) processes, direct evidence on how real option applications can measure a dynamic capability-based synergy in open innovation-type M&A deals has been scarce. This study draws from seminal research on real options theory to explore some of these benefits and limits to value a synergy in one recent highly strategic acquisition. To strengthen the identification of causal effects, the paper develops the proposition that justifies the role of dynamic capabilities as antecedents of the success of open innovation-type M&A deals in the ICT industry and demonstrates real options’ application to measure M&A synergies. To test the internal and external validity of the proposition, the explorative case study on Samsung’s acquisition of Harman International Industries was analyzed and interpreted. This study contributes important empirical evidence to bear on the literature on open innovation theory, dynamic capabilities framework, and real options theory.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".