Compare methods

	Configurational Strategy Analysis (fsQCA)	Dynamic Capabilities Measurement
Field	Strategic Management	Strategic Management
Family	Process / pipeline	Latent structure
Year of origin	2008	1997
Originator	Charles Ragin; Peer Fiss	David J. Teece, Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen; David J. Teece
Type	Set-theoretic configurational comparative method	Construct-measurement approach for firm-level adaptive capabilities
Seminal source	Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 9780226702759	Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Aliases	Fuzzy-Set QCA for Strategy, Configurational Comparative Analysis, Set-Theoretic Strategy Analysis, Equifinality Configuration Analysis	Dynamic Capabilities Assessment, Sensing-Seizing-Reconfiguring Measurement, DC Microfoundations Scale, Dynamic Capability Operationalization
Related	4	3
Summary	Configurational strategy analysis applies fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to strategy questions, asking not which single variable drives an outcome but which combinations of conditions together produce it. The method rests on Charles Ragin's set-theoretic framework, fully developed in his 2008 book Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, which treats causes as set-membership relations and uses Boolean logic to find the configurations of conditions that are sufficient for an outcome. Peer Fiss's 2011 Academy of Management Journal article brought the approach into mainstream strategy and organization research, showing how fuzzy sets can express organizational typologies and introducing the distinction between core and peripheral conditions. The defining premises are equifinality - several different recipes can lead to the same outcome - and causal asymmetry - the conditions for success are not the mirror image of those for failure.	Dynamic capabilities are a firm's higher-order abilities to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen's 1997 article introduced the construct to explain why some firms renew their advantage under technological change while others, with strong but static resources, fall behind. Teece's 2007 article disaggregated the construct into three measurable clusters of activity -- sensing opportunities and threats, seizing them through investment and business-model choices, and reconfiguring the asset base to maintain fit -- and located their microfoundations in identifiable routines and processes. Measuring dynamic capabilities means turning these abstract, higher-order constructs into observable indicators: defining the sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring dimensions, writing reflective items or archival proxies for each, validating a multidimensional measurement model, and relating the construct to performance, typically conditional on environmental dynamism.