Compare methods

	Real Options Strategy Valuation	Dynamic Capabilities Measurement
Field	Strategic Management	Strategic Management
Family	MCDM	Latent structure
Year of origin	1994	1997
Originator	Avinash Dixit & Robert Pindyck; Lenos Trigeorgis; Rita McGrath	David J. Teece, Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen; David J. Teece
Type	Option-valuation framework for strategic investment under uncertainty	Construct-measurement approach for firm-level adaptive capabilities
Seminal source	Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691034102	Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Aliases	Real Options Reasoning, Strategic Flexibility Valuation, Options-Based Strategy Analysis, Growth and Deferral Option Valuation	Dynamic Capabilities Assessment, Sensing-Seizing-Reconfiguring Measurement, DC Microfoundations Scale, Dynamic Capability Operationalization
Related	4	3
Summary	Real options strategy valuation treats discretionary strategic investments - the chance to defer, expand, contract, stage, switch, or abandon a project - as financial-style options whose value comes from managerial flexibility under uncertainty. Dixit and Pindyck's 1994 Investment under Uncertainty established the theory that, when investment is irreversible and the future is uncertain, the right to wait has positive value and raises the threshold above which committing capital is optimal. Trigeorgis's 1996 synthesis showed how to decompose a strategic project's worth into a passive net present value plus the premium attached to its embedded options, and how to value those options with contingent-claims logic. Rita McGrath's 1999 work brought the same reasoning to strategy and entrepreneurship, arguing that managers should pursue high-variance opportunities with small, staged commitments so that downside is capped while upside stays open.	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.