Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature ondynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis

European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 w ww.elsevier.es/ermbe Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis Gema Albort-Moranta, Antonio L. Leal-Rodríguezb,∗, Vicente Fernández-Rodríguezb, Antonio Ariza-Montesb aUniversity of Seville, Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Avda. Ramón y Cajal 1, 41018 Seville, Spain bUniversity Loyola Andalucía, Department of Business Management, C/Energía Solar 1, 41014 Seville, Spain a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 17 January 2017 Received in revised form 12 June 2017 Accepted 14 June 2017 Available online 18 July 2017 JEL classification: M0 M1 M2 Keywords: Dynamic capabilities Bibliometric analysis Web of Science a b s t r a c t The purpose of this study is to serve as orientation and guidance to academics that are starting or currently developing their research within the field of dynamic capabilities, in order to enhance their knowledge about which are the key scientific journals, authors and articles shaping this topic. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis on dynamic capabilities, making use of the Web of Science database to perform it. This analysis comprises fundamental issues such as (i) the number of studies published per year, (ii) the countries with the highest rate of productivity, (iii) the most prolific and influential authors, (iv) assessment of studies citing dynamic capabilities, and (v) the most productive journals on dynamic capabilities and recent studies on this topic. Results reveal an exponential growth in the number of publications on dynamic capabilities for the 2000–2012 period. Although, since 2012 this growth has decelerated, the number of publications on this topic remains noteworthy. This study brings useful information for those academics and practitioners attempting to analyze and deepen within this particular field of research, at the same time that provides some insights concerning the future development and progress of the dynamic capabilities topic in the management, business and economics academic literature. © 2017 AEDEM. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction Research on dynamic capabilities (DC) stands amongst the most prolific streams of research within the field of management for the last two decades. This might be explained by the high importance and awareness that the strategic management literature has devoted to this topic. Although the research domain of dynamic capabilities has become one of the most active in the strategic management field, several criticisms have aroused arguing the existence of some controversy and confusion around this concept. In fact, the authors are still looking for the nature of dynamic capabilities, its antecedents or drivers, its outcomes and the organizational and managerial processes and procedures underlying this concept (Cepeda & Vera, 2007; Teece, 2007) and there exists a lack of agreement concerning the conceptualization of this topic. However, this lack of agreement, been taken into ∗Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Albort-Morant), [email protected] (A.L. Leal-Rodríguez), [email protected] (V. Fernández-Rodríguez), [email protected] (A. Ariza-Montes). account, should not prevent us from attempting to identify in this study the most relevant authors, journals and publications within the dynamic capabilities literature with the aim of building a reference framework for future researchers that might contribute to strengthen and unify this concept. Despite the widespread diffusion and interest aroused by this topic, little attention has been paid until this moment to the pertinence of building a framework that brings the main currents and studies in the field of dynamic capabilities. In this line, several literature reviews have been made (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2010; Easterby-Smith, Lyles, & Peteraf, 2009). Nevertheless, few papers like the written by Vogel and Güttel (2013) entitled “The dynamic capabilities view in strategic management: a bibliometric review” could be highlighted as an attempt to develop a bibliometric review of this concept. However, these authors use different methods to measure and analyze the research outcomes, such as co-citation and bibliographic coupling, more aimed at detecting intertextual linkages existing between academic publications due to the referencing behaviour of scholars. In addition, these authors document co-citation analysis, while this technique might be also applied to additional bibliographic items (i.e., authors or academic journals). We aim to cover this gap, by http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.004 2444-8834/© 2017 AEDEM. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/). G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 43 analyzing further these complementary sources of bibliographic information. Hence, the main purpose of our study is to orient researchers and enable a wider understanding and grasp of the dynamic capabilities topic. This paper might serve as an introductory reference and preliminary approach for new researchers targeting to become familiar with the literature on dynamic capabilities. To this aim, the article intends to clarify the concept of dynamic capabilities and subsequently develops a bibliometric analysis of the existing research on dynamic capabilities, trying to elucidate which view better describes the evolution of this topic during a period of 24 years (1991–2015), helping this way to clarify the concept and applications of dynamic capabilities. The bibliometric analysis leads us to acknowledge who are the most influential authors, which are the most profuse journals, which countries hold the highest rate of productivity, what has been the number of studies on dynamic capabilities per year, the studies citing dynamic capabilities, or the recent advances on this topic. The paper proceeds as follows. The next section presents the theoretical background, where we intend to shed some light toward the concept of dynamic capabilities, on the basis of prior related studies. The third section comprises a description of the research methodology. The forth section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis. Finally, the fifth section brings together the discussion, and directions for future research. 2. Conceptual framework Although multiple definitions can be found in the literature (Table 1 gathers the most widely recognized of them), dynamic capabilities can be defined as the capacity that enables a firm to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. This is the sense in which Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) introduced the term of dynamic capabilities in the article entitled “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”. This paper is considered the most influential study on dynamic capabilities, together with a recently developed new framework of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007, 2014). This term is still used in our days, although, over the years, many are the authors who have attempted to redefine and expand the concept of dynamic capabilities, adjusting it to the particular context of the moment. Authors such as Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), Zollo and Winter (2002), Helfat and Peteraf (2003), Zott (2003), Winter (2003), Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson (2006), Teece (2007), Helfat et al. (2009) or Cepeda and Vera (2007), among others, have contributed with their particular view and understanding of dynamic capabilities. However, they have failed to provide a concise and comprehensive definition of dynamic capabilities and its conceptualization has not reached consensus yet (Protogerou, Caloghirou, & Lioukas, 2012). Consequently, this has produced some misunderstandings. More recently, Peteraf, Di Stefano, and Verona (2013) point out that the origin of such confusion appeared very soon, between the publication of what they called “seminal papers” – Teece et al. (1997) and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) –. What is certain is that, although the concept is born and develops linked to strategic management, the literature shows how researchers have paid great attention to its relationship with an increasingly broad variety of aspects, which jointly with its possible applications to different areas, has critically affected the definition of dynamic capabilities. In this line, we can find definitions such as the one provided by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) that presents dynamic capabilities as specific and identifiable processes that especially comprise the development of products, strategic decision-making, and management of alliances. Subsequently, Zahra et al. (2006) define dynamic capabilities as the firm’s ability to reconfigure organizational resources and routines in the form that imagined and considered to be appropriate whereby the main decisions. Whereas, in their later study, Helfat et al. (2009, p. 4) define them as “the ability to perform a task in least minimally acceptable manner”. In an effort to understand the nature of dynamic capabilities, Zollo and Winter (2002) and Winter (2003) distinguish between two types of routines: the first deals with the firm’s operational activity – “operational routines” – and the latter involves the modification of operating routines – “dynamic capabilities” –. Dynamic and operational capabilities differ in their purposes and intended outcomes (Helfat & Winter, 2011). Operational capabilities comprise the firm’s operational functioning, being also labeled Table 1 Definitions of dynamic capabilities. Author Definition Teece and Pisano (1994, p. 537) Timely responsiveness and rapid and flexible product innovation, along with the management capability to effectively coordinate and redeploy internal and external competences. Teece et al. (1997, p. 516) The firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 1006) The firm’s processes that use resources-specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain, and release resources-to match and even create market change; dynamic capabilities thus are the organizational and strategic routines by which firms achieve new resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve and die. Teece (2000, p. 36) The ability to sense and then seize opportunities quickly and proficiently. Griffith and Harvey (2001, p. 597) Dynamic Capabilities is a combination of resources that are difficult-to-imitate, including effective coordination of inter-organizational relationships, on a global basis that can provide a firm competitive advantage. Zollo and Winter (2002, p. 340) A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness. Lee, Lee, and Rho (2002, p. 734) Dynamic capabilities are conceived as a source of sustainable advantage in Schumpeterian regimes of rapid change. Adner and Helfat (2003, p. 1012) The capabilities with which managers build, integrate, and reconfigure organizational resources and competences. Helfat and Peteraf (2003, p. 999) Dynamic capabilities do not directly affect output for the firm in which they reside, but indirectly contribute to the output of the firm through an impact in operational capabilities Winter (2003, p. 991) Those (capabilities) that operate to extend, modify, or create ordinary capabilities. Zahra et al. (2006, p. 918) The abilities to reconfigure a firm’s resources and routines in the manner envisioned and deemed appropiate by its principal decision-maker(s). Helfat et al. (2009, p. 4) The ability to perform a task in least minimally acceptable manner. Teece (2007, p. 1319) Dynamic capabilities can be disaggregated in the capacity (a) to sense and shape opportunities and threats, (b) to seize opportunities, and (c) to maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining, protecting, and, when necessary, reconfiguring the business enterprise’s intangible and tangible assets. Pavlou and El Sawy (2011, p. 239) Dynamic capabilities have been proposed as a means for addressing turbulent environments by helping managers extend, modify, and reconfigure existing operational capabilities into new nes that better match the environment. Helfat and Martin (2015, p. 1) The capabilities with wich managers create, extend, and modify the ways in which firms make a living-helps to explain the relationship between the quality of managerial decisions, strategic change, and organizational performance. 44 G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 “how we earn a living now” capabilities (Cepeda & Vera, 2007). In contrast, Helfat and Peteraf (2003, p. 999) argue that “dynamic capabilities do not directly affect output for the firm in which they reside, but indirectly contribute to the output of the firm through an impact in operational capabilities”. Teece (2007) recognizes in turn that operational capabilities help an organization’s technical fitness by ensuring its day-to-day operational efficiency, whereas dynamic capabilities help to sustain a firm’s evolutionary fitness, thereby creating long-run competitive success. Besides, Pavlou and El Sawy (2011) propose that dynamic capabilities might help managers to extend, modify, and reconfigure existing operational capabilities in turbulent environments. Certainly, most studies framed within the dynamic capabilities view (DCV) highlight the strong connection between this set of higher order resources and capabilities, namely dynamic capabilities, and the attainment and renewal of competitive advantages (Vivas-López, 2005). For instance, authors like Camisón and Forés (2010) and Leal-Rodríguez and Roldán (2013) label dynamic capabilities to refer to the set of organizational competencies that allows firms to generate value and to leverage competitive advantages through strategic management processes, while Martelo-Landroguez, Barroso-Castro, and Cepeda-Carrión (2011) propose that organizations are able to increase customer value by identifying and effectively fostering adequate combinations of dynamic capabilities. Furthermore, dynamic capabilities may grant firms the necessary doses of flexibility that might enable them to adjust to uncertain and changing scenarios and to develop product, process and managerial innovations (Singh, Singh-Oberoi, & Singh-Ahuja, 2013). Similarly, Chaharbaghi, Adcroft, and Willis (2005) argue that a strategical combination of organizational transformability and dynamic capabilities are vital in explaining the organizations’ survival and renewal. In spite of the possible discrepancies, from the initial contributions (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002) it already appears a fairly sharp agreement on the core elements that define dynamic capabilities: (i) level of environmental change, (ii) organizational processes or routines, (iii) resources configuration, (iv) managers’ decision making, and (v) learning mechanisms (Fukuzawa, 2015). As we have said before, Table 1 presents several definitions of dynamic capabilities employed in key studies. 3. Method Bibliometric analysis is a discipline that consists on the application of statistical methods to evaluate developments and knowledge enhancement regarding a specific subject and the assessment of the scientific quality and influence of the distinct works and sources (Bouyssou & Marchant, 2011; Daim, Rueda, Martin, & Gerdsri, 2006). With regard to the traditional literature review, this type of analysis is an innovative methodology (De Bakker, Groenewegen, & Den Hond, 2005). This analysis provides useful information for those academics and practitioners attempting to analyze and deepen within this particular field of research (Duque-Oliva, Cervera Taulet, & Rodríguez Romero, 2006), as bibliometric analysis determines an array of significant indicators for measuring the bibliographic material. By virtue of the bibliometric analysis, researchers might access and expand their knowledge with regard to key indicators such as the number of publications, the most prolific authors, the countries where this field of research is more popular or the journals that devote more attention to publishing issues referred to this particular topic. Other indicators to be used for measuring a researcher’s influence are the total number of publications, number of citations, citations/papers ratio (Hirsch, 2005) or the h-index1(Merigó, Mas-Tur, Roig-Tierno, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Bachrach (2008) the number of studies measures the productivity and the number of citations constitutes a good proxy as for the researcher’s influence. The first step of bibliometric analysis involves identifying those databases that would be more useful for the study (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). This study relies on the use of the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WOS) database, formerly ISI Web of Knowledge, which is an online scientific information assistant that includes scientific documents and research paper across all disciplines. This database permits researchers to access to research papers and other documents from scientific journals and books in all fields of science (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). The journals indexed in the WOS have associated an impact factor in the Journal Citation Report (JCR). This analysis was carried out in January 2016, through the access to the WOS database. This study analyzes scientific research for the period 1991–2015. The total amount of research studies analyzed on this paper comprises the areas of business, management and economics in the WOS. To measure the existing publications, Cadavid-Higuita, Awad, Cardona, and Jaime (2012) define three types of indicators: quantity, quality and structural. The first indicator measures productivity in terms of the number of publications, while the second indicator measures the impact of a publication in relation to the number of citations. Besides, structural indicators measure the connections existing between the different works and authors. While other related studies such as the one developed by Vogel and Güttel (2013) have focused on structural indicators, this paper covers the two first types of indicators in order to measure what are the publications that entail greater recognition within the field of dynamic capabilities and serve as guidance for further research. 4. Results This section presents the findings of the bibliometric analysis of the scientific research on dynamic capabilities. This study focuses on documents published between 1991 and 2015 within the management, economics and business categories. The starting year, 1991, was chosen because it is when the first study dealing with dynamic capabilities was published, accordingly with the Web of Science. This paper is entitled “New technology adoption in an innovative marketplace: Microand macro-level decision making models” and was published in the International Journal of Forecasting by Bridges, Coughlan, and Kalish (1991). This topic comprehends 3852 studies published in the Web of Science until the end of 2015, which includes 2808 articles, 793 proceedings papers, 265 reviews, 64 editorial material, 14 book reviews, 11 book chapters and 2 corrections. This study uses the following bibliometric indicators: •Number of dynamic capabilities research documents published between 1991 and 2015. •Countries with the highest rate of productivity. •Authors with the highest citation rate. •Journals with more studies on dynamic capabilities. •The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities. •Recent most cited articles on dynamic capabilities (2012–2015). 1The h-index is an academic author-level metric that intends to measure the levels of productivity and citation impact of a scholar’s publications. The index is based on the set of the author’s most cited papers and the number of citations received in other publications. G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 45 Table 2 Annual number of studies in dynamic capabilities. R Year Number of publications 1 1991 2 2 1992 6 3 1993 12 4 1994 9 5 1995 11 6 1996 19 7 1997 25 8 1998 29 9 1999 15 10 2000 47 11 2001 57 12 2002 60 13 2003 78 14 2004 101 15 2005 129 16 2006 179 17 2007 260 18 2008 308 19 2009 308 20 2010 354 21 2011 390 22 2012 397 23 2013 395 24 2014 353 25 2015 307 4.1. Year of publication The topic of dynamic capabilities appears in academic research in 1991. Table 2 and Fig. 1 present the number of publications per year on dynamic capabilities since 1991. During the first year there were only two published studies within the Web of Science. During the following twenty-four years, the annual volume of studies has been continually increasing. Since 2004 this expansion became more significant with an annual increase until the record of 397 studies published in 2012. The escalation in publications from 2004 can be explained by two factors: the increase of research paper submissions to conferences and scientific journals, and the development of internet, enabling access to information sources and new trends of research (Merigó et al., 2015). However, from 2012 to 2015, the number of publications has experienced a slight decrease, which may suggest that although the number of publications is still considerable, the topic might be entering a maturity phase. 4.2. Countries with the highest rate of productivity Table 3 shows the twenty countries with the highest rate of productivity on dynamic capabilities. Such rate of productivity is Table 3 Top 20 countries with the highest rate of productivity. Rank Country TP TC C/P h-Index 1 USA 1277 77,806 60.93 123 2 England 499 11,059 22.16 52 3 China 420 1461 3.48 19 4 Spain 261 2789 10.69 23 5 Germany 213 3041 14.28 25 6 Canada 205 6186 30.18 41 7 Australia 192 1820 9.48 21 8 Italy 180 3028 16.82 28 9 Taiwan 170 1298 7.64 18 10 Netherlands 165 3569 21.63 34 11 Finland 128 1338 10.45 19 12 France 128 5991 46.80 33 13 Sweden 112 6177 55.15 20 14 Denmark 86 2670 31.05 24 15 Switzerland 71 1773 24.97 18 16 South Korea 60 1370 22.83 14 17 Norway 54 1078 19.96 18 18 Singapore 53 1188 22.42 18 19 Japan 44 2144 48.73 12 20 Turkey 44 367 8.34 9 measured through different indicators: i.e., the number of research articles published (TP), the total number of citations received by the published articles (TC), average citations per article published (C/P), and finally, the h-index, used to measure the quality of research output on the basis of the number of citations received. The United States stands as the leading country in the ranking of countries with most studies published on dynamic capabilities. It is also the first qualified in the rankings of countries with most citations, highest average citations per article, and highest h-index. Between 1991 and 2015, scholars from the USA produced 1277 documents with 77,806 citations, 60.93 citations per article, and h-index of 123. This seems reasonable, given the dimensions of the United States and that North American authors have traditionally had greater access to scientific journals and databases than authors from other countries. England and China occupy the second and third positions with 499 and 420 studies respectively. Nevertheless, despite accounting 420 publications, China has a low C/P of 3.48 points, whereas some countries placed behind hold a superior C/P index, such as the case of Spain that holds a 10.69 C/P index with up to 261 publications. This leads us to point out that despite the quantity of Chinese publications on this topic is certainly significant, perhaps they are of minor academic worth, which might explain its lower rate of citations per publication. The country with the highest h-index is the USA, followed by England and Canada. In the case of productivity rating (C/P), the USA 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fig. 1. Number of studies on dynamic capabilities published between 1991 and 2015. 46 G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 Table 4 Top 10 countries in productivity per year. Year USA England China Spain Germany Canada Australia Italy Taiwan Netherlands 1991 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1994 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1995 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1996 13 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1997 15 4 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1998 13 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 1999 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2000 28 8 0 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 2001 35 9 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 6 2002 33 8 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 2003 30 10 3 2 3 3 4 3 1 4 2004 49 13 8 3 0 7 5 1 3 6 2005 54 20 13 2 3 10 5 6 1 4 2006 68 18 22 8 13 12 6 6 7 4 2007 75 35 48 12 15 14 11 8 7 9 2008 87 44 60 14 19 8 11 8 14 16 2009 118 44 50 12 10 17 10 14 6 14 2010 111 42 42 33 17 23 13 18 29 15 2011 112 38 27 42 20 22 20 16 21 11 2012 125 49 35 38 27 26 27 20 23 23 2013 94 54 31 40 28 16 28 28 20 15 2014 92 49 41 31 20 25 18 13 17 19 2015 91 46 39 23 32 7 29 25 17 12 is followed Sweden and Japan as the countries with more citations per article. The case of Japan is interesting, as it is a country with a high rate of citations per article published, despite having only 44 studies. This could be reflecting the high quality of Japanese studies or the existence and maintenance of a powerful research network. Then, Table 4 shows the evolution of the number of studies published within each of the ten most productive countries since 1991. During the nineties, most articles appearing in journals indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science were published in the USA. Since 2000 it can be observed a significant proliferation in the number of publications. It is expected that the number of publications on dynamic capabilities will continue globally growing during the next years, but at a more moderate pace than during the 2005–2015 period. 4.3. Authors with highest citation rate Many authors from a wide range of origins have carried out research on dynamic capabilities and published their findings in scientific journals indexed in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. In this section, we show the most impactful authors on the field of dynamic capabilities. Table 5 analyzes the number of articles published (TP), the total number of citations received by the published articles (TC), average citations per article published (C/P), and the h-index. This ranking also points out the country where the authors develop their research activity. The most prolific author on the topic is David J. Teece with up to seventeen scientific articles. Besides, the author with greatest number of citations and more citations per article published is Teece with 7130 citations. Over the years, Teece performed studies that have significantly contributed to new theories development. It should be remarked that most of these researchers work in the USA and England. Nonetheless, a remarkably important number of authors work in, China and several European countries. 4.4. Most productive journals The Thomson Reuters Journal Citations Report (JCR) indexes scientific journals of different research areas. Hence, it reveals the distinct journals that have published research studies on dynamic capabilities. Concretely, in this case, we have limited our study to the journals belonging to the business, management and economics areas. Identifying what are the journals that have been traditionally publishing research studies on dynamic capabilities becomes a critical issue in order to decide which journals to read when developing a review of the literature. In this vein, Table 6 presents the top 20 journals with the highest productivity on dynamic capabilities research. Three journals are noteworthy: “Strategic Management Journal” with 160 articles, “Organization Science” with 100 articles, and “International Journal of Technology Management” with 88 articles. Table 6 also shows the 2015 JCR impact factor associated to each journal. The impact factor is normally used to know the relative importance of a journal within a particular research field. Thus, academic journals with higher impact factor tend to be considered more impactful. In this study, the journal with the highest impact factor is “Journal of Management” with a score of 6.051 points. This journal is followed by, “Journal of Management Studies” with 4.260 points. Finally, in third place we find “Journal of Operations Management” that has an impact factor of 4.000 points. 4.5. The 50 most cited studies Finally, in the Web of Science we can observe a major proportion of contributions on dynamic capabilities with a high influence on business research. Table 7 presents a list with the 50 most cited studies about this topic. The most cited article has received almost 5164 citations. This specific study, entitled “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, was developed by the authors Teece, Pisano and Shuen and was published in 1997. The second article in the ranking is the work “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication technology”, published by Kogut and Zander (1992), which receives 3336 citations in total. Subsequently, in the third place, the authors Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) published the article “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?” which holds 2529 citations. An important proportion of the most cited articles in this field involve theoretical works aimed at the conceptualization and development of dynamic capabilities. Plenty of these works were carried out by eminent academic authorities in the field of dynamic capabilities, for instance: David J. Teece, G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 47 Table 5 Most important authors in the literature on dynamic capabilities. Rank Authors Country TP TC c/P h-Index 1 Teece DJ USA 17 7130 419.41 13 2 Foss NJ Norway 14 620 44.29 9 3 Hitt MA USA 14 1875 133.93 13 4 Volberda HW Netherlands 14 904 64.57 9 5 Winter SG USA 14 2686 191.86 11 6 Helfat CE USA 13 1821 140.08 9 7 Zahra SA USA 13 2495 191.92 8 8 Li Y China 12 75 6.25 5 9 Jacobides MG England 11 625 56.82 9 10 Tushman ML England 11 1816 165.09 10 11 Verona G Italy 11 292 26.55 7 12 Wright M England 11 650 59.09 8 13 Camison C Spain 10 118 11.8 7 14 George G England 10 2162 216.2 9 15 Grover V USA 10 800 80 8 16 Mahoney JT USA 10 527 52.7 7 17 Zollo M Italy 10 1875 187.5 8 18 Bowman C England 9 513 57 9 19 Eisenhardt KM USA 9 3065 340.56 8 20 Lewin AY USA 9 425 47.22 8 Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jeffrey A. Martin, Maurizio Zollo, Sidney G. Winter, Shaker A. Zahra, among many others. Moreover, accordingly with Eriksson (2014), the majority of empirical studies were published after 2005, indicating that this concept still capture the academics’ interest and that the study of this topic is quite recent. 4.6. The 55 most cited studies between 2012 and 2015 To be able to know the tendencies on the field of dynamic capabilities we carried out an analysis of the articles published in the Web of Science during the last four years (2012–2015). To this aim, we have chosen the articles that have been cited at least once. Table 8 shows the article’s title, the name of the author, the date of publication and the type of study. Peteraf et al. (2013) suggest that dynamic capabilities have been conceptualized in two currents of investigation, evolutionary and ecological. One school belongs to Teece and its companions and the other one to Eisenhardt and Martin. Teece’s school centers on the role played by entrepreneurs and managerial teams, while Eisenhardt and Martin’s school brings a more ecological vision faced to empirical studies (Arndt & Norbert, 2015). This disagreement implies some consequences as for the evaluation of dynamic capabilities. Among the latter most relevant publication in the Web of Science we can highlight “The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity”, from the authors Chen and Chang (2013) that identifies more with Eisenhardt and Martin’s ecological school. In this article the authors study the influence of dynamic capabilities in the performance of green product development. We also find articles more linked with the evolutionary school of dynamic capabilities, such as “Dynamic Capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action”, by Teece (2012), “Supplying large firms: The role of entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses”, from the authors Woldesenbet, Ram, and Jones (2012), or “Technology change and dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities”, from the authors Lanza and Passarelli (2014). These articles focus on introducing the concept of dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities, and in trying to understand how entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities can drive firm performance. Besides, we also identify articles more focused on senior management teams, for instance, “Executive decision making: Linking dynamic managerial capabilities to the resource portfolio and strategic outcomes”, by Beck and Wiersema (2013), which contributes to the understanding of the dynamic management capabilities through the development of a model that integrates dynamic management capabilities with organizational strategy and performance. Table 6 Journals with greater number of studies on dynamic capabilities. Rank Number of publications Journals Impact factor 2015 1 160 Strategic Management Journal 3.341 2 100 Organization Science 3.360 3 88 International Journal of Technology Management 0.625 4 82 Industrial Marketing Management 1.930 5 75 Research Policy 3.470 6 70 Journal of Management Studies 4.260 7 66 Journal of Business Research 2.129 8 60 Technovation 2.243 9 59 Management Decision 1.429 10 58 Industrial and Corporate Change 1.327 11 53 International Journal of Operations Production Management 2.252 12 53 Journal of Product Innovation Management 2.086 13 47 Journal of World Business 2.811 14 39 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 1.454 15 39 Journal of International Business Studies 3.620 16 38 Technology Analysis Strategic Management 0.845 17 37 Journal of Management 6.051 18 37 Long Range Planning 2.936 19 37 R&D Management 1.190 20 36 British Journal of Management 2.188 48 G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 Table 7 The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities. Rank TC Authors Title Type of study 1 5164 Teece et al. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management Conceptual 2 3336 Kogut and Zander (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinate capabilities, and the replication technology Conceptual 3 2529 Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Conceptual 4 1787 Levinthal and March (1993) The Myopia of Learning Conceptual 5 1702 Zahra and George (2000) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension Conceptual 6 1456 Grant (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration Conceptual 7 1285 Zollo and Winter (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities Empirical/quantitative 8 976 Gulati, Nohria, and Zaheer (2000) Strategic networks Conceptual 9 972 Teece (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance Conceptual 10 941 Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case Empirical/qualitative 11 898 Gereffi, Humphrey, and Sturgeon (2005) The governance of global value chains Conceptual 12 891 Kogut and Zander (1996) What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning Conceptual 13 774 Benner and Tushman (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited Conceptual 14 756 Gulati (1995) Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis Conceptual 15 708 Gulati (1999) Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation Empirical/quantitative 16 703 Amit and Zott (2001) Value creation in e-business Empirical/qualitative 17 700 Winter (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities Conceptual 18 699 Orlikowski (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing Empirical/quantitative 19 677 Baum, Calabrese, and Silverman (2000) Do not go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology Empirical/quantitative 20 667 Helfat and Peteraf (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles Conceptual 21 655 Maskell and Malmberg (1999) Localised learning and industrial competitiveness Conceptual 22 622 Ancona and Caldwell (1992) Demography and design-predictors of new product tem performance Empirical/quantitative 23 612 Gold and Arvind Malhotra (2001) Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective Empirical/quantitative 24 591 Melville, Kraemer, and Gurbaxani (2004) Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value Conceptual 25 534 Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities Empirical/quantitative 26 523 Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, and Grover (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms Conceptual 27 499 Carlile (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries Conceptual 28 497 Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging Empirical/qualitative 29 486 Makadok (2001) Toward a synthesis of the resource-based anddynamic-capability views of rent creation Conceptual 30 472 Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland (2007) Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box Conceptual 31 470 Wright, Dunford, and Snell (2001) Human resources and the resource based view of the firm Empirical/quantitative 32 458 Wade and Hulland (2004) Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research Conceptual 33 445 Danneels (2002) The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences Empirical/qualitative 34 421 Williamson (1999) Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives Conceptual 35 392 Knight and Cavusgil (2004) Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm Empirical/quantitative 36 379 Brusoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt (2001) Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: why do firms know more than they make? Conceptual 37 378 DeCarolis and Deeds (1999) The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry Empirical/qualitative 38 372 Lorenzoni and Lipparini (1999) The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study Empirical/quantitative 39 367 Aragón-Correa and Sharma (2003) A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy Conceptual 40 350 Teece (2010) Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation Conceptual 41 341 Jansen, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda (2005) Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedent’s matter? Empirical/quantitative 42 329 Rai, Patnayakuni, and Seth (2006) Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities Empirical/quantitative 43 326 Zahra et al. (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda Conceptual 44 321 Newbert (2007) Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research Empirical/quantitative 45 319 Lavie (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view Conceptual 46 319 Helfat (1997) Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamiccapability accumulation: the case of R&D Empirical/quantitative 47 315 Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu, and Kochhar (2001) Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue – Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation Empirical/qualitative 48 308 Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators Conceptual 49 294 Collis and Montgomery (1995) Competing on resources-Strategy in the 1990s Empirical/qualitative 50 292 Smith and Tushman (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams Conceptual G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 49 Table 8 The most cited studies on dynamic capabilities between 2012 and 2015. Rank Author Article Type of study 1 Pentland et al. (2012) Dynamics of organizational routines: a generative model Empirical 2 Petit (2012) Project portfolios in dynamic environments: organizing for uncertainty Qualitative case study 3 Teece (2012) Dynamic Capabilities: routines versus entrepreneurial action Conceptual 4 Jacobides and Winter (2012) Capabilities: structure, agency, and evolution Conceptual 5 Camisón and Monfort-Mir (2012) Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives Conceptual 6 Vogel and Güttel (2013) The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review Bibliometric methods 7 Kindström, Kowalkowski, and Sandberg (2013) Enabling service innovation: a dynamic capabilities approach Qualitative case study 8 Beske (2012) Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management Conceptual 9 Teece (2014) A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise Conceptual 10 Hsu and Wang (2012) Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: the mediating role of dynamic capability Empirical 11 Kor and Mesko (2013) Dynamic managerial capabilities: configuration and orchestration of top executives’ capabilities and the firm’s dominant logic Conceptual 12 Argote and Ren (2012) Transactive memory systems: a microfoundation of dynamic capabilities Conceptual 13 Biedenbach and Müller (2012) Absorptive, innovative and adaptive capabilities and their impact on project and project portfolio performance Qualitative–quantitative 14 Schilke (2014) On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: the nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism Empirical 15 Protogerou et al. (2012) Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance Empirical 16 Chen (2012) The synergistic effects of IT-enabled resources on organizational capabilities and firm performance Empirical 17 Nieves and Haller (2014) Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources Empirical 18 Woldesenbet et al. (2012) Supplying large firms: the role of entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses Empirical 19 Lin and Wu (2014) Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework Empirical 20 Eggers and Kaplan (2013) Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective Conceptual 21 Jiao, Alon, Koo, and Cui (2013) When should organizational change be implemented? The moderating effect of environmental dynamism between dynamic capabilities and new venture performance Empirical 22 Chakrabarty and Wang (2012) The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: a dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization Empirical 23 Rodenbach and Brettel (2012) CEO experience as micro-level origin of dynamic capabilities Empirical 24 Helfat and Peteraf (2015) Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfundations of dynamic capabilities Conceptual 25 Li and Liu (2014) Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: evidence from China Empirical 26 Zhan and Chen (2013) Dynamic capability and IJV performance: the effect of exploitation and exploration capabilities Empirical 27 Wilden, Gudergan, Nielsen, and Lings (2013) Dynamic capabilities and performance: strategy, structure and environment Empirical 28 Jantunen, Ellonen, and Johansson (2012) Beyond appearances – Do dynamic capabilities of innovative firms actually differ? Qualitative case 29 Ripollés and Blesa (2012) International new ventures as “small multinationals”: the importance of marketing capabilities Empirical 30 Makkonen, Pohjola, Olkkonen, and Koponen (2014) Dynamic capabilities and firm performance in a financial crisis Qualitative case study–quantitative 31 Chen and Chang (2013) The determinants of green product development performance: green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green creativity Empirical 32 Chien and Tsai (2012) Dynamic capability, knowledge, learning, and firm performance Empirical 33 Ramírez, Österman, and Grönquist (2013) Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic capabilities to frame managerial attention Qualitative case 34 Denford (2013) Building knowledge: developing a knowledge-based dynamic capabilities typology Conceptual 35 Corner and Wu (2012) Dynamic capability emergence in the venture creation process Conceptual 36 Newey et al. (2012) The relationship between dynamic and operating capabilities as a stage-gate process: insights from radical innovation Conceptual 37 Daniel, Ward, and Franken (2014) A dynamic capabilities perspective of IS project portfolio management Conceptual 38 Eriksson (2014) Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities Empirical 39 Galvin, Rice, and Liao (2014) Applying a Darwinian model to the dynamic capabilities view: insights and issues Empirical 40 Agarwal and Selen (2013) The incremental and cumulative effects of dynamic capability building on service innovation in collaborative service organizations Empirical 41 Yung and Lai (2012) Dynamic capabilities in new product development: the case of Asus in motherboard production Empirical 42 Koryak et al. (2015) Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth Conceptual 43 Villar, Alegre, and Pla-Barber (2014) Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: a dynamic capabilities view Empirical 44 Beck and Wiersema (2013) Executive decision making: linking dynamic managerial capabilities to the resource portfolio and strategic outcomes Conceptual 45 Stadler, Helfat, and Verona (2013) The impact of dynamic capabilities on resource access and development Empirical 46 Wang et al. (2013) Examining the role of information technology in cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities Empirical 47 Wilden and Gudergan (2015) The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: investigating the role of environmental turbulence Empirical 48 Di Stefano, Peteraf, and Verona (2014) The organizational drivetrain: a road to integration of dynamic capabilities research Conceptual 49 Teece (2014) The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in AN (Economi) theory of firms Conceptual 50 Lanza and Passarelli (2014) Technology change and dynamic entrepreneurial capabilities Conceptual 51 Arend (2014) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: how firm age and size affect the ‘capability enhancement-SME performance’ relationship Empirical 52 Eriksson (2013) Methodological issues in dynamic capabilities research – a critical review Empirical 53 Wang, Jaw, and Tsai (2012) Building dynamic strategic capabilities: a human capital perspective Empirical 54 Arndt and Norbert (2015) Evolutionary and ecological conceptualization of dynamic capabilities: identifying elements of the Teece and Eisenhardt schools Conceptual 55 Piening and Salge (2015) Understanding the antecedents, contingencies, and performance implications of process innovation: a dynamic capabilities perspective Empirical 50 G. Albort-Morant et al. / European Research on Management and Business Economics 24 (2018) 42–52 In recent years, there have appeared several works that focus on marketing and technological capabilities such as “The impact of dynamic capabilities on operational marketing and technological capabilities: investigating the role of environmental turbulence”, by Wilden and Gudergan (2014), “International new ventures as “small multinationals”: The importance of marketing capabilities”, by Ripollés and Blesa (2012), or “Examining the role of information technology in cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities”, by Wang, Hu, and Hu (2013). This latter work focuses on two key organizational capabilities – marketing and technological – that drive the actions through which the company can face and adapt to a changing environment, being able hence to enhance its performance. 5. Discussion and further research Our analysis provides a general overview of the existing scientific research on the field of dynamic capabilities between 1991 and 2015 in terms of publications retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS) database. This paper might serve as a guide for future researchers who intend to develop studies on dynamic capabilities, and need to acknowledge which academic journals, authors and articles should be addressed to attain a proper theoretical framework within this particular field of study. The exhaustive bibliometric analysis of 3852 documents gathered from the WOS database shows that 2808 are articles. The most popular scientific article on dynamic capabilities is “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, developed by Teece et al. (1997). The country responsible for most research on dynamic capabilities is the USA (1277 published documents), which may owe to the high proportion of journals based in the USA. The journals holding most widely published research on this topic is the “Strategic Management Journal” (160 documents), followed by the journals “Organization Science” (100 documents) and “International Journal of Technology Management” (88 documents). The most prolific dynamic capabilities author is David J. Teece with 17 documents. The results of the bibliometric analysis reveal a continued growth in the number of documents related to dynamic capabilities. In the latter year 2015 we can find 307 publications that present empirical works aiming to develop new theories and novel approaches. Although there are less works than on the previous year, it is still a remarkable figure. This study highlights the three most cited studies within this topic, which can be considered as seminal works that should be addressed by every research work in this field. These works are the following: in first place, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, from the authors Teece et al. (1997), with 5164 citations; Secondly, the study entitled “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication technology” (Kogut & Zander, 1992), with 3336 citations. And, in third place, “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?” from Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), with 2529 citations. On the other hand, this paper presents the studies with most citations within the 2012–2015 period. Among the theoretical studies published in this period we can highlight a study to provide new knowledge on the background, contingencies and consequences of performance differences between companies in the successful process innovation, based on the approach of dynamic capabilities (Piening & Salge, 2015), or a study by Eriksson (2014) that focuses on three areas: the processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Nevertheless, there remains a tendency to contextualize the concepts of dynamic and organizational capabilities. In addition, several articles explain the evolution of dynamic and organizational routines (Newey, Verreynne, & Griffiths, 2012; Pentland, Feldman, Becker, & Liu, 2012). This study has some limitations. The first limitation is that many publications on dynamic capabilities might appear in non-indexed journals, which are unavailable in the WOS database. Frequently, the citation index or the number of publications measures quantitative figures, despite the actual quality of the document. The mere fact that an author is important or relevant persuades other authors to cite that author without reading the article or developing a decisive and significant view of its content (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). Another limitation can be that the results give a picture of the current situation, however these results may change over time, especially for the recent publications of the last two-three years that still have to grow considerably. And finally, this study is developed within a specific field – business, management and economics –. Consequently, researchers should be cautious while generalizing their conclusions. Implications for further research are clear. In the case of empirical works, since first studies were published, there can be observed a trend characterized by exploring the role played by dynamic capabilities in the enhancement of business performance. However, recent works focus on more current issues such as technology; marketing; the environment; the role adopted by entrepreneurs, internationalization issues or the management of multinationals (Arend, 2014; Chen & Chang, 2013; Hsu & Wang, 2012; Teece, 2014). Other articles discuss the complementarities existing between dynamic capabilities and supply chain management (Beske, 2012; Koryak et al., 2015). Therefore, further research conducted on the field of dynamic capabilities should be less focused on the attempt to link DC with performance and advance toward the assessment of the impact exerted by DC on the above mentioned managerial issues. Besides, we observe a noteworthy evolution of the published articles in this field of research. Initially, the articles focused on explaining theoretical models aimed at enabling the enhancement of the literature on this topic. The majority of empirical studies were published after 2005 (Eriksson, 2014). For this reason, it can be observed that this topic still arises high doses of presence and interest among researchers. The results show that despite the literature is quite fragmented and shows a lack of consensus in certain issues, research developments are continually proliferating and expanding the number of approaches and understanding of dynamic capabilities. Further research should include articles that do not constrain their scope to the WOS, relying hence on the use of other online databases, as for example Scopus or Google Scholar. These databases might contain studies published in journals that are not indexed within the ISI Web of Science. In addition, subsequent bibliometric studies could compare the results from other databases with those presented in this research or perform a meta-analysis, which might enable the classification of the most cited articles or the latest articles in different categories. References Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025. Agarwal, R., & Selen, W. (2013). The incremental and cumulative effects of dynamic capability building on service innovation in collaborative service organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(5), 521–543. Albort-Morant, G., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2015). A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1775–1779. Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29–49. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 634–665. Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.