Vertaile menetelmiä

	Dynaamisten kyvykkyyksien asteikko	Innovaatioambideksteriteettiasteikko
Tieteenala	Strateginen johtaminen	Strateginen johtaminen
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	2007	1991
Kehittäjä	David J. Teece	James G. March
Tyyppi	Organizational self-report questionnaire	Organizational self-report questionnaire
Alkuperäislähde	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.
Rinnakkaisnimet	DCV, Teece Dynamic Capabilities	Ambidexterity Scale, Exploration-Exploitation Scale
Liittyvät	5	5
Tiivistelmä	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.