Skip to main content
No Access

The impact of autotelic and dynamic capabilities on the performance of knowledge-intensive, low-tech ventures

Published Online:pp 210-225https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2013.055249

This article explores the impact of autotelic capabilities on the performance of knowledge-intensive low-tech ventures at start-up stage in terms of initial competitive advantage, survival, growth and innovativeness. It also examines the effect of dynamic capabilities on the performance of these newly-established firms and indicates links among the two types of capabilities. The paper provides evidence that the development of autotelic capabilities can play a significant role in the creation of new knowledge-intensive low-tech ventures. The dimensions of autotelic capabilities, bricolage, improvisational and transcendental capabilities create novel business concepts and establish successful ventures in saturated competitive arenas. Autotelic capabilities act as precursors of dynamic capabilities. The study indicates that low-tech companies that invest and build their strategy on knowledge intensiveness and innovation may develop relatively strong DCs to gain competitive advantage.

Keywords

dynamic capabilities, entrepreneurial capabilities, knowledge intensive entrepreneurship, low-tech, low technology, competitive advantage, new venture, innovation, performanc

References

  • 1. Alvarez, S.A. , Busenitz, L.W. (2001). ‘The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory’. Journal of Management. 27, 6, 755-775 Google Scholar
  • 2. Arthurs, J.A. , Busenitz, L.W. (2006). ‘Dynamic capabilities and new venture performance: the moderating effects of venture capitalists’. Journal of Business Venturing. 21, 2, 195-215 Google Scholar
  • 3. Baker, T. , Nelson, R.E. (2005). ‘Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage’. Administrative Science Quarterly. 50, 3, 329-366 Google Scholar
  • 4. Baker, T. , Miner, A.S. , Eesley, D.T. (2003). ‘Improvising firms: bricolage account giving and improvisational competency in the founding process’. Research Policy. 32, 3, 255-276 Google Scholar
  • 5. Barrett, F.J. (1998). ‘Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: implications for organizational learning’. Organization Science. 9, 5, 605-623 Google Scholar
  • 6. Boccardelli, P. , Magnusson, M.G. (2006). ‘Dynamic capabilities in early-phase entrepreneurship – observations from mobile internet start-ups’. Knowledge and Process Management. 13, 3, 162-174 Google Scholar
  • 7. Brown, S.L. , Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997). ‘The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations’. Administrative Science Quarterly. 42, 3, 1-34 Google Scholar
  • 8. Brush, C.G. , Vanderwerf, P.A. (1992). ‘A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance’. Journal of Business Venturing. 7, 2, 157-170 Google Scholar
  • 9. Christensen, C. , Carlile, P. , Sundahl, P. (2002). The Process of Theory-Building. (accessed 3 July 2012), Working Paper 02-016, [online] http://www.innosight.com Google Scholar
  • 10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York:Harper Perennial , ISBN 0-06-092820-4 Google Scholar
  • 11. Dahlqvist, J. , Wiklunda, J. (2012). ‘Measuring the market newness of new ventures’. Journal of Business Venturing. 27, 2, 185-196 Google Scholar
  • 12. Ensley, M.D. , Hmieleski, K.M. , Pearce, C.L. (2006). ‘The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the performance of startups’. The Leadership Quarterly. 17, 3, 217-231 Google Scholar
  • 13. Evers, N. (2011). ‘International new ventures in low-tech sectors – a dynamic capabilities perspective’. Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development. 18, 3, 502-528 Google Scholar
  • 14. Felin, T. , Foss, N. , Heimeriks, K. , Madsen, T. (2012). ‘Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: individuals processes and structures’. Journal of Management Studies. 49, 8, Google Scholar
  • 15. Helfat, C.E. , Finkelstein, S. , Mitchell, W. , Peteraf, M.A. , Singh, H. , Teece, D.J. , Winter, S.G. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organization. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing Google Scholar
  • 16. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2008). ‘‘Low-technology’: a forgotten sector in innovation policy’. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. 3, 3, 11-20 Google Scholar
  • 17. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. , Schwinge, I. ‘Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in low-tech sectors’. DRUID 201. 2011, 06, 15–17, (accessed 3 July 2012), Denmark:Copenhagen Business School , [online] http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/xge28vtpffa1i3b5pjsfbfx4agl6.pdf Google Scholar
  • 18. Hmieleski, K.M. , Corbett, A.C. (2008). ‘The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behaviour with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction’. Journal of Business Venturing. 23, 4, 482-496 Google Scholar
  • 19. Ireland, R.D. , Hitt, M.A. , Sirmon, D.G. (2003). ‘A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions’. Journal of Management. 29, 6, 963-989 Google Scholar
  • 20. Jacobson, D. , Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. , Smith, K. , Laestadius, S. (2003). Low-Tech Industries and the Knowledge Economy: State of the Art and Research Challenges. The STEP Group Studies in Technology Innovation and Economic Policy, STEP Report Series 200316 Google Scholar
  • 21. Kamoche, K.N. Pina e Cunha, M. et al. (2002). Organizational Improvisation. London:Routledge Google Scholar
  • 22. Karagouni, G. (2011). ‘Autotelic capabilities and knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in low-tech sectors’. 4th Annual EuroMed Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business, 20–21 October 2011, Elounda, Crete, Greece, 946-949, ISBN: 978-9963-711-01-7 Google Scholar
  • 23. Karagouni, G. , Caloghirou, Y. (2013). ‘Unfolding autotelic capabilities in low-tech knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship’. J. International Business and Entrepreneurship Development. 7, 1, 21-36 AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Karagouni, G. , Kalesi, M. (2011). ‘Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities in low-tech SMEs: evidence from the Greek food sector’. MIBES Transaction on Line Electronic Version. (accessed 3 July 2012). ISSN 1790-9899, 5/2, 1-19, [online] http://mibes.teilar.gr Google Scholar
  • 25. Le Loarne, S. (2005). Bricolage Versus Creativity: What’s the Difference?. Grenoble Ecole de Management, Working Paper Series RMT (WPS 05-02) Google Scholar
  • 26. Malerba, F. , McKelvey, M. ‘Conceptualizing knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: concepts and models’. 2010. Paper presented at the DIME/AEGIS Athens Conference 2010. Google Scholar
  • 27. McKelvie, A. , Davidsson, P. (2009). ‘From resource base to dynamic capabilities: an investigation of new firms’. British Journal of Management. 20, 1, S63-S80 Google Scholar
  • 28. Politis, D. (2005). ‘The process of entrepreneurial learning: conceptual framework’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 29, 4, 399-424 Google Scholar
  • 29. Protogerou, A. , Karagouni, G. (2012). Identifying Dynamic Capabilities in Knowledge-intensive New Entrepreneurial Ventures Actors Sectoral Groups and Countries. D1.8.2. AEGIS Project Google Scholar
  • 30. Protogerou, A. , Caloghirou, Y. , Lioukas, S. (2012). ‘Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance’. Industrial and Corporate Change. 21, 3, 1-33, 10.1093/ icc/dtr049 Google Scholar
  • 31. Rindova, V.P. , Fombrun, C.J. (1999). ‘Constructing competitive advantage: the role of firm-constituent interactions’. Strategic Management Journal. 20, 8, 691-710 Google Scholar
  • 32. Robertson, P. , Smith, K. , Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2008). ‘Distributed knowledge bases in low- and medium-technology industries’. Innovation in Low-tech Firms and Industries. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar , 93-117 Google Scholar
  • 33. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:Doubleday Currency Google Scholar
  • 34. Stam, E. , Gibcus, P. , Telussa, J. , Garnsey, E. (2007). Employment Growth of New Firms. EIM Business and Policy Research, Scales Research Reports H200716 Google Scholar
  • 35. Teece, D.J. (2007). ‘Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance’. Strategic Management Journal. 28, 13, 1319-1350, 10.1002/smj Google Scholar
  • 36. Teece, D.J. , Rosenberg, N. Hall, B. (2010). ‘Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of enterprise-level knowledge complementarities and (dynamic) capabilities’. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland Google Scholar
  • 37. Teece, D.J. (2012). ‘Dynamic capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action’. Journal of Management Studies. 49, 8, 1935-1401 Google Scholar
  • 38. Teece, D.J. , Pisano, G. , Shuen, A. (1997). ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’. Strategic Management Journal. 18, 7, 509-533 Google Scholar
  • 39. von Tunzelmann, N. , Acha, V. , Fagerberg, J. Nelson, R. Mowery, D. (2005). ‘Innovation in ‘low-tech’ industries’. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York:Oxford University Press , 407-432 Google Scholar
  • 40. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods. 3rd ed., Newbury Park:Sage Publications , ISBN 0-7619-2553-8 Google Scholar
  • 41. Zahra, S.A. , Sapienza, H.J. , Davidsson, P. (2006). ‘Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review model and research agenda’. Journal of Management Studies. 43, 4, 917-955 Google Scholar
  • 42. Zollo, M. , Winter, S. (2002). ‘Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities’. Organization Science. 13, 3, 339-351 Google Scholar