Сравнение на методи

	Dynamic Capabilities Scale	Скала за иновационна амбидекстърност
Област	Стратегически мениджмънт	Стратегически мениджмънт
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Година на възникване	2007	1991
Създател	David J. Teece	James G. March
Тип	Organizational self-report questionnaire	Organizational self-report questionnaire
Основополагащ източник	Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.	March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Други названия	DCV, Teece Dynamic Capabilities	Ambidexterity Scale, Exploration-Exploitation Scale
Свързани	5	5
Резюме	Dynamic Capabilities (DC) represent an organization's capacity to sense new opportunities and threats, seize those opportunities through strategic investments and organizational changes, and reconfigure assets and organizational structures to adapt to shifting competitive environments. Teece (2007) articulated this framework in the Strategic Management Journal, arguing that dynamic capabilities—not static resources—explain sustained competitive advantage in turbulent, knowledge-intensive markets. This scale operationalizes the three core processes underlying DC: sensing market and technology changes, making swift strategic decisions, and reorganizing the firm to exploit new opportunities.	Innovation Ambidexterity—the organizational capacity to simultaneously engage in exploration (pursuing radical, novel innovations) and exploitation (improving and extending existing products and processes)—is fundamental to sustained competitive advantage. March (1991) formalized this trade-off in Organization Science, arguing that organizations must balance the two to survive and thrive. Exploration alone leads to variety but insufficient returns; exploitation alone leads to competence traps and vulnerability to disruption. This scale, operationalized by He and Wong (2004) and extended by Jansen et al. (2006), measures organizational capability in both domains and the degree to which firms balance competing innovation imperatives.