89

Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation

Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’
Fred Strønen1, Thomas Hoholm2, Kari Kværner3, and
Linn Nathalie Støme4
Abstract
In this explorative study, we investigate the relationship between dynamic
capabilities and innovation capabilities. Dynamic capabilities are at the core of
strategic management in terms of how firms can ensure adaptation to changing
environments over time. Our paper follows two paths of argumentation. First, we
review and discuss some major contributions to the theories on ordinary capabilities,
dynamic capabilities, and innovation capabilities. We seek to identify different
understandings of the concepts in question, in order to clarify the distinctions and
relationships between dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities. Second, we
present a case study of the ’Innovation Clinic’ at a major university hospital, including
four innovation projects. We use this case study to explore and discuss how dynamic
capabilities can be extended, as well as to what extent innovation capabilities can
be said to be dynamic. In our conclusion, we discuss the conditions for nurturing
‘dynamic innovation capabilities’ in organizations.
Keywords: dynamic capabilities; innovation capabilities; service innovation;
healthcare.

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we seek to understand dynamic innovation capabilities, as

compared (and related) to dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities,
respectively. A long research tradition has focused on organizations’ resources

1 Fred Strønen, Ph.D., Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, PO Box 4 St.Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo,
Norway, e-mail: [email protected].
2 Thomas Hoholm, Ph.D., BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, N-0484 Oslo, Norway, e-mail: thomas.
[email protected].
3 Kari J. Kværner, Ph.D., C3-Centre for Connected Care, Ullevaal Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, building 2H, N-0450 Oslo,
Norway, e-mail: [email protected].
4 Linn Nathalie Støme, MSc, C3-Centre for Connected Care, Ullevaal Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, building 2H, N-0450 Oslo,
Norway, e-mail: [email protected].
90 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

as sources and limitations of growth, competitive advantage and innovation

(e.g., Penrose, 1959; Bower, 1970; Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991).
Extending this tradition, capabilities, rather than resources or products,
have been suggested to explain the challenge of achieving superior fit with
shifting environments (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). Eisenhardt and Martin
(2000) explicitly challenged the resource-based view, arguing that there are
identifiable processes that can explain the nature of competitiveness. Later
research on capabilities has focused on how higher-order routines constitute
dynamic capabilities (Winter, 2003). To meet the demands from new markets,
revolutionary changes in technology or new business models, firms need to
renew themselves (Chakravarthy & Doz, 1992) and be innovative. There have
been a number of theoretical studies of dynamic capabilities (e.g., Eisenhardt
& Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997; Teece, 2007; Teece, 2014), but one of the
key remaining challenges is to understand the relationship between dynamic
capabilities and innovation capabilities, as pointed out by Breznik and Hisrich
(2014). The relationship between dynamic capabilities and innovation
capabilities shows overlaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions (Breznik &
Hisrich, 2014, p. 368,). Thus, our research questions are: How are capabilities
related to innovation? And, relatedly, what are the premises for dynamic
innovation capabilities, and how can they be developed?
In this paper, we will use Teece’s (2014) definition and operationalization
of dynamic capabilities into sensing opportunities to meet customer needs,
seizing opportunities to mobilize resources and capture value, and continued
renewal through transformation. There are few studies of innovation
capabilities in practice, and our aim is to use a case study of an innovation
unit at a major university hospital as a vehicle to explore potential differences
and similarities between dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities.
We do this by reviewing and discussing some central contributions to the
literature on capabilities, dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities,
while seeking to clarify the distinctions between the terms. We then present
a case study of an ‘Innovation Clinic’ at a large university hospital. Towards the
end of the paper, we discuss the potentially dynamic aspects of innovation
capabilities and why they are important in large research-oriented service
organizations.

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 91

LITERATURE REVIEW

An outline of dynamic and innovation capabilities

Capabilities
Capabilities can be understood as what makes firms different among
their competing and partnering organizations. For example, different car
producers are all participants in the same industry, but they show very
different performance. The variation between firms’ performance, then,
cannot be explained by the industry itself (Rumelt, 1991; Porter & McGahn,
1997). Rather, this variation can be explained by firm-specific differences
due to different strategic capabilities, as the firms deploy resources and
competences (Johnson et al., 2014). There are important distinctions
between capabilities and resources (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993), as it is not
sufficient to control tangible or intangible resources for long-term survival;
the ability to configure and reconfigure resources over time is also needed.
Penrose (1959) discussed the challenge and limitations of growth in terms of
management capacity to hire, train and implement new management in an
organization. Firms cannot easily acquire or get rid of specialized resources,
and specialization tends to create a stickiness effect. For instance, time and
effort must be used to align resources after acquisitions or mergers. Leonard-
Barton (1992) discusses the challenges regarding how core capabilities also
create core rigidities, in her analysis of product development teams. When
investing in and learning certain capacities, firms will also find that it is costly
to change focus, and, therefore, specializing in certain capabilities will create
rigidities.
There are several descriptions of capabilities, not necessarily ‘dynamic’
capabilities, in the literature. This is a good starting point to understand
dynamic capabilities, innovation capabilities, and dynamic innovation
capabilities – the three core concepts we will use in this paper. Amit and
Schoemaker (1993) argue that capabilities can be functional and rooted in
specific areas of the firm. Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997, p. 512) use the
term ‘operational’ capabilities to describe the ordinary routines of Southwest
Airlines that were difficult for competitors to copy. Later, Helfat and Winter
(2011) used the terminology of operational and dynamic capabilities
to describe first- and second-order capabilities. Ordinary capabilities
are explained by Winter (2003) as the capacity to fix ad-hoc problems
or challenges. This type of capability is not dynamic but is only suited for
situated problem solving. Thus, these are not capabilities enabling long-term
or higher-order changes in the organization. For further use in this paper,
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),
Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
92 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

we will use the simple term “capabilities” interchangeably with operational,

functional or ordinary capabilities as discussed in the literature.

Dynamic capabilities
We define dynamic capabilities, in line with Teece et al. (1997) and Teece
(2007), as not only direct production or development of market offers but
also a higher-order capability to build, integrate and reconfigure operational
capabilities. Capabilities have two intrinsic qualities (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003, p.
999), those that perform individual tasks and those that coordinate individual
tasks. In order to try to discuss what makes capabilities dynamic, we will
look at some of the advances in this research stream. Dynamic capabilities
can be understood, for example, by observing industry dynamics over time.
Capabilities can be easy to define in theory but quite hard to identify in
practice. Therefore, we offer an example from the music player and camera
industry in order to provide an idea of the kind of role dynamic capabilities
actually play in practice. Sony was once a market leader in portable music,
first selling portable cassette players, then establishing itself in the market
for portable CD players and, later, in the mini-disc market. New technology
came with the MP3 format to dominate the industry. However, Sony did not
capture any significant part of the MP3 market for portable music, as Apple
and others came in to dominate the market. However, Sony moved on to use
its capabilities to establish itself in the camera market, and by 2014 they had
captured 13% of the high-end market for cameras with changeable lenses
(Petapixel.com, 2015), which had earlier been dominated by firms such as
Nikon, Canon and Olympus. From this example, we can gain insight into how
resources, competences, R&D and market insight, as well as managerial
talent are deployed in different areas over time, and we can understand from
a practical point of view what constitutes dynamic capabilities. This example
also illustrates the challenge of understanding the nature of dynamic
capabilities in time and space (e.g., over time and in several markets).
One of the early contributions to our insight on the nature of dynamic
capabilities originates from Collis (1994), who used the term ‘organizational
capabilities’, arguing that dynamic capabilities are simply capabilities that
make it possible to change ordinary capabilities over time. According to Collis,
dynamic capabilities are subject to three challenges; erosion, substitution
and learning about higher-order capabilities over time. Teece et al. (1997, p.
516) defines dynamic capabilities, with reference to Leonard-Barton (1992),
as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external
competences to address rapidly changing environments. Dynamic capabilities
thus reflect an organization’s ability to achieve new and innovative forms

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 93

of competitive advantage given path dependencies and market positions”.

Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 1105) argue that dynamic capabilities consist
of a set of specific processes, such as product development, strategic decision
making and alliancing. They argue that these capabilities are identifiable and
typically have similar characteristics across firms, in terms of basic processes
and activities, but they are not equal across industries. The challenge with
Eisenhardt and Martin’s (2000) view on dynamic capabilities is that they become
just another set of processes, not describing how capabilities are renewed over
time. Another aspect is how Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) identify a more
active managerial role than, for instance, Teece et al. (1997) do. While Teece et
al. (1997) rely more on routines and procedures, Eisenhardt and Martin (2000,
p. 1117) argue that competitive advantage comes from how managers use
dynamic capabilities, rather than from the capabilities themselves.
Winter (2003) suggests a useful way of distinguishing between ordinary
capabilities and dynamic capabilities; however, Helfat and Winter (2011, p.
1245) argue that it is difficult to make a distinction between dynamic and
operational capabilities. We can only know afterwards where the change is
coming from, the size of the change, and what effects the change will have.
For firms involved in R&D, there might be spill-over effects on production,
as small improvements in a fabric or substance might alter the production
process itself. Thus, it is difficult, a priori, to tell the difference between
dynamic and operational capabilities, because one could lead to the other
and vice versa. This is one of the reasons why there is a need for longitudinal
studies of capabilities in time and space.

Table 1. Four different definitions of dynamic innovation capabilities

Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997, p. 516): “We define dynamic capabilities as the firm’s ability
to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly
changing environments. Dynamic capabilities thus reflect an organization’s ability to achieve
new and innovative forms of competitive advantage given path dependencies and market
positions.”
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 1118): “Dynamic capabilities include well-known
organizational and strategic processes like alliancing and product development whose
strategic value lies in their ability to manipulate resources into value-creating strategies.
Although idiosyncratic, they exhibit commonalities or ‘best practice’ across firms….They
evolve via well-known learning mechanisms.”
Winter (2003, p. 991): “One can define dynamic capabilities as those that operate to extend,
modify or create ordinary capabilities.”
Helfat, Finkelstein, Mitchell, Peteraf, Singh, Teece, and Winter (2007, p. 4): “A dynamic
capability is the capacity of an organization to purposefully create, extend or modify its
resource base.”
As can be seen in Table 1, there are two major, and somewhat different,
perspectives on capabilities. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) argue that dynamic

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
94 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

capabilities can be understood as routines of “best practice” and, further, that

capabilities must be robust in order to handle fast changes. Firms operating
in high-velocity environments need to rely on heuristics for changes, quickly
developing new combinations of resources when needed. Teece (2014),
on the other hand, argues that Eisenhardt and Martin’s (2000) concept
of ‘dynamic capabilities’ is quite similar to Teece et al.’s (1997) concept of
‘ordinary capabilities’. Eisenhardt and Martin (2000, p. 13) argue that dynamic
capabilities are simply “best practices” and are shared among several firms
in the market. Teece (2014, p. 332) describes ordinary capabilities in terms of
technical efficiency in business functions, based on the ability to buy or build
learning. An ordinary capability can be based on a best practice, which is not
very difficult to imitate, such as when managerial emphasis is placed on cost
control. In terms of modus operandi, ordinary capabilities involve aiming at
doing things right and efficiently, with technical fitness as a result.
There are several literature reviews discussing the nature and the origins
of dynamic capabilities (Ambrosini et al., 2009; Breznik & Hisrich, 2014;
Easterby-Smith, Lyles & Peteraf, 2009; Helfat et al., 2007; Wang & Ahmed,
2007). A majority of these studies of dynamic capabilities treat Teece et
al. (1997) as the original definition of dynamic capabilities. The purpose of
dynamic capabilities is to achieve congruence with business opportunities
and user needs by learning, based on signature processes that are difficult to
imitate (Teece, 2014). As an operationalization for analytical purposes, Teece
(2007, p. 12319) argues that “dynamic capabilities can be disaggregated
into the capacity (1) to sense and shape opportunities and threats, (2)
to seize opportunities, and (3) to maintain competitiveness through
enhancing, combining, protecting, and, when necessary, reconfiguring the
business enterprise’s intangible and tangible assets”. Hence, we will use the
dimensions of sensing, seizing and transforming as analytical dimensions in
this paper. The modus operandi focuses on doing the right things through
entrepreneurial action, and the goal is to create evolutionary fitness through
innovation. As Teece (2014) argues, there is a potential for focusing on the
nature of innovation within the dynamic capabilities literature in general, and
innovation capabilities in detail, as we will do in the next section.

Innovation capabilities
The concept of innovation capabilities is somewhat confusing. On the one
hand, capabilities in themselves involve routines – and specifically, as defined
by Winter (2003), routines for daily business – while dynamic capabilities are
routines for higher order changes or adaptation. In this respect, dynamic
capabilities have covered most of the themes discussed in the innovation

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 95

literature, at least at a strategic management level of analysis. As described by

Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), dynamic capabilities are discovered in product
development processes, in addition to strategic decision making, integrating
resources, and acquisitions. Teece (2007, p. 1321) describes the role of the
entrepreneur, as not only adapting to, but actually shaping, the environment.
With this in mind, dynamic capabilities involve product development as well as
entrepreneurial action, and thus innovation capabilities are already covered
by the contributions of dynamic capabilities. However, Wang and Ahmed
(2007, p. 37) use the term ‘innovation’ to describe the nature of innovation
capabilities, in addition to adaptive and absorptive capabilities, as the three
main forms of capabilities that exist. Teece (2007) argues that selecting
products and business models is part of the micro-foundations of dynamic
capabilities. These two core business processes are central to innovation. On
the other hand, we can see that dynamic capabilities are more than only
innovation capabilities, as discussed by Helfat and Peteraf (2011, p. 1249), as,
for instance, product development may also relate to existing business. From
the literature on strategic management, we can argue that innovation and
innovation capabilities refer to an important part of dynamic capabilities; in
fact, it is one of the central entities of dynamic capabilities.
On the other hand, if we look at studies on innovation and search for
the connection to innovation capabilities, this might reveal interesting insight
into use of the terminology. We conducted a literature review on innovation
capabilities, analyzing contributions using the terms “innovation” and
“capabilities” together. In doing so, we discovered traces back to Lawson and
Samson’s (2001) study of innovation management. They developed a construct
from a theory review and a case study of Cisco Systems, consisting of seven
elements: vision, competence base, organizational intelligence, creativity,
idea management, organizational structures and systems, culture and
climate, and management of technology. They portray innovation capability
as a meta-capability to achieve outstanding innovation performance. Lawson
and Samson (2001, p. 380) state that innovation capability “is proposed as
a higher-order capability, that is, the ability to mould and manage multiple
capabilities. Organisations possessing this innovation capability have the
ability to integrate key capabilities and resources of their firm to successfully
stimulate innovation” (i.e. dynamic capability).
Studies of innovation capabilities are mainly concerned with either
industry- or firm-specific factors. Several studies focus on industries,
geographical areas or more general development of innovation capabilities in
different regions. Guan and Ma (2003) investigated innovative capabilities and
export performance among Chinese firms, concluding that export growth was
closely related to the total improvement of innovation capability dimensions,
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),
Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
96 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

except for manufacturing capabilities. However, the core innovation assets

(a set of R&D, manufacturing and marketing assets) alone did not lead
to sustainable export growth. There are also studies of technology and
innovation capabilities (Yam et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2008), focusing on how
firms cope with uncertainty. Several studies focus on innovation capabilities
in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Keskin (2006) reported a
positive relationship between market orientation, learning and innovation
capabilities in SMEs. Forsman (2011) examined innovation patterns in SMEs
and demonstrated that manufacturing and service firms were not very
different, instead finding larger differences between sectors (Forsman, 2011,
p. 748). However, our focus in this study is on organization-specific factors,
not industry-wide application and development of innovation capabilities.
Hertog et al. (2010) developed a conceptual framework for capabilities to
manage service innovations and specified six dynamic service innovation
capabilities – namely, signaling user needs and technological options,
conceptualizing, (un-)bundling capability, co-producing and orchestrating,
scaling and stretching, and learning and adapting. Terziovski (2007) studied
how innovation capabilities can be developed and exploited, arguing that
the essential building blocks for innovation capabilities are collaboration
and knowledge transfer. Oskaya (2011) and Oskaya et al. (2015) argued that
innovation capabilities mediate the relationship between knowledge and
product innovation, as well as the relationship between inter-functional
cooperation and product performance. As a critical remark to the studies
of innovation capabilities, few of these studies relate their concepts to the
long-term survival of the organizations at hand. To conclude, the studies on
dynamic capabilities are related to the overall strategy of the firm, while
studies on innovation – utilizing the innovation capability terminology, take
a more functional stance towards innovation. In both areas, innovation and
innovation capabilities play an important role, and to some extent they
overlap, but from a different starting point. Studies on dynamic capabilities
consider the overall strategic implications, while studies using the terminology
of innovation capabilities look at innovation as a driver for performance.

Clarifying the concepts of dynamic capabilities and innovation

capabilities
With the preceding discussion in mind, how can we conceive of the
relationship between dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities?
Helfat et al. (2007, p. 4) define dynamic capabilities as “the capability of an
organization to purposefully create, extend and modify its resource base”, and
above we explained that innovation capabilities could be seen as potentially

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 97

dynamic or non-dynamic (Teece et al., 1997). According to these authors,

typical innovation activities, such as product development and R&D, are not
necessarily dynamic if they do not contribute to the long-term capacity to
adapt to changing environments. Hence, innovation capabilities may in fact
operate under relatively stable environmental conditions, or they may lack
the features necessary to aid in reinterpreting and reconfiguring knowledge
and resources according to changes and instabilities in the environment,
not to mention the ability to partake in shaping the environment. On the
other hand, as emphasized by Lawson and Samson (2001) and Terziowski
(2011), innovation capabilities may be highly dynamic, in that they contribute
to radical reinterpretation, recombination and transformation of the
organization’s knowledge and resources in ways that influence and adapt
to changing environments. Furthermore, this way of looking at innovation
capabilities as potentially dynamic is fully within the scope of Teece and
colleagues’ (1997; 2007; 2014) version of dynamic capabilities, emphasizing
the sensing, seizing and transformation of capabilities over time. In other
words, it is the capability of transforming capabilities, including innovation
capabilities, over time, that qualifies as ‘dynamic capabilities’. Hence, in
order to study the relationship between dynamic capabilities and innovation
capabilities empirically, we will utilize the framework of Teece (2014) to
analyze and discuss the development of dynamic innovation capabilities in
practice.

RESEARCH METHODS

We have conducted a process-oriented single case study of an innovation

unit in a big organization in order to explore complex relationships over
time (Hoholm & Araujo, 2011; La Rocca et al., 2017). Our case study analysis
has been characterized by abductive back-and-forth movements between
empirically rich descriptions, analysis, and theory development (Dubois
& Gadde, 2002; 2014). It is challenging to study capabilities, and dynamic
capabilities are best understood across time and space. Hence, we conducted
a longitudinal case study of the Innovation Clinic at a major University
Hospital, including a series of their innovation projects. The case was chosen
for its potential to enable an exploration of dynamic innovation capabilities
in practice. The data are based on retrospective constructions (documents
and interviews) as well as prospective process observations by the third and
the fourth authors. Numerous field interviews, field observations and field
talks were done by these authors throughout the whole period. At the end of
each innovation project, the Innovation Clinic wrote case evaluation reports

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
98 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

in order to develop their methods and capacity to (1) document the value
of, and the barriers to, innovation projects; and (2) contribute to actual and
important innovation processes. These project reports were exploited as
important data materials in our study, documenting aspects of the process,
as well as methods and routine development. In addition, the successive
development of innovation practices across the projects was analyzed to
identify the Innovation Clinic’s learning about innovation management
over time. The first author was included at a later stage, contributing to the
theoretical and analytical frameworks, and to the discussion of findings, with
the critical gaze of the ‘outsider’. The second author contributed empirically,
while not being a participant in any of the innovation projects, as well as
to the analysis and discussion of findings. In our experience, the authors
contributed a productive mix of different views and experiences to create
new insights. The purpose of the study was to develop knowledge of the
development of dynamic innovation capabilities at the organizational level.
Thus, we chose to describe a selection of innovation projects that we found
to demonstrate the emergence of new capabilities across time.
In our analysis, we identified major happenings, meetings, conflicts and
decisions made throughout the different projects reported in this paper. Four
innovation cases were chosen from a wider pool of 11 project reports, as they
could most clearly illustrate the line of development over time, emphasized
by the theoretical framework of this paper. The study covers the time period
from 2007 to 2016. Hence, this paper benefited from a longitudinal case
study (Hoholm & Araujo, 2011), while coping with the challenges of ‘nativism’
(Gioa & Chittipeddi, 1991) through distance, discussion and ideas from the
more ‘external’ authors. We used an abductive approach, moving back and
forth between analysis and theorizing (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; 2014), in order
to get a better analytical grip on how dynamic innovation capabilities may
be developed. The results of our study are found at the level of ‘analytical
generalizations’, encouraging further research to complement our insights
across cases and contexts (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).

A case study of innovation capabilities development in a hospital

We will now direct our focus to describe the efforts of the “Innovation Clinic”
(IC) at a major Norwegian university hospital, including their facilitation of
four different innovation projects. We analyze how the IC and each of the
four innovation projects may be said to contribute to the development
of dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities in the hospital. The
studied university hospital has more than 20,000 employees and serves the
population of a major city and its surrounding area, as well as the national

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 99

population in some specialized medical fields. Overall, the university hospital

is one of the larger hospitals in the European context. Hospitals have been
considerably knowledge-intensive for decades, and their practices are
increasingly knowledge-based, in line with the emergence of the medical
sciences. However, while medical personnel at this hospital published
around 350 scientific papers in 2007, only one innovation was reported.
The organization found it to be more challenging to develop and implement
innovations, which often required organizational and institutional changes,
than to develop research-based medical knowledge closely related to daily
medical practices. Hence, the Innovation Clinic was established in 2007 to
develop innovations within and at the borders of the university hospital.
There seemed to be a large potential to improve dynamic capabilities and
support a stronger development of innovation capabilities in the organization,
particularly in terms of services and organizational aspects. The Innovation
Clinic formulated four different aims in the startup phase: (1) With top-down
support, build bottom-up infrastructure for innovation; (2) investigate and
document the economic value of innovations; (3) communicate and document
innovation benefits; and (4) establish an innovation network at the national
level. Through the early phase, a series of 11 different innovation projects
were used instrumentally to provide insight and experience in documenting
value and benefits to employees, patients, their families, hospitals, the
healthcare sector, and society at large. This strategy was considered to be
important for getting the attention of decision makers as well as the whole
organization. Through close contact with several clinics and practices at the
hospital, the Innovation Clinic developed methods to promote and facilitate
healthcare innovation. They also worked to develop capacity for guiding
innovation project participants on using these methods and frameworks.
Their methodological approach was built on the following principles:
1) Capture patients and professionals’ needs for improvement in regular
practice. This was usually done through a first meeting at the clinic. The
“Innovator” (patient, health provider, decision maker, etc.) met with an
innovation advisor from the Innovation Clinic to identify bottlenecks
within current practice.
2) Mobilize resources for a valuable intervention. The Innovation Clinic held a
strong belief that an interdisciplinary approach was needed in order to create
a robust intervention. Workshops that gathered patents, professionals and
decision makers proved to be an important tool in this phase.
3) Iteration and stepwise implementation. The distance between need,
intervention and implementation was often recognized to be quite
substantial, and usually the first attempt at an intervention did not
fully cover the needs. A stepwise approach to implementation was thus

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
100 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

developed to reveal inefficiencies and insufficient understanding of the

problem while the intervention was still transformable.
In the following sections we present four of the 11 innovation projects to
show how the Innovation Clinic worked to promote and facilitate innovation
through this early phase. These four projects were selected for our analysis
due to their potential to display how IC learned to facilitate service and
organizational innovations across the hospital.
We have utilized the framework from Teece (2009, 2014) as an
operationalization of dynamic capabilities into ‘sensing’, ‘seizing’ and
‘transforming’. We have reviewed the empirical data from the four
innovation projects analyzed, utilizing the different concepts for classification
of the activities in each project. Next, we have analyzed the similarities and
differences across the projects, including how these could indicate learning
across projects over time. This analysis formed part of our attempt to
investigate the relationship between dynamic capabilities and innovation
capabilities.

Advanced Home Hospital for Children

Sensing and shaping opportunities

This project had the aim of improving the hospitalization of children with
long-term treatment needs. This is an idea that had been circulating across
many hospitals for a few years, but its realization had been slow. A project
titled ‘Advanced Home Hospital’ (AHH) was initiated at the hospital, aiming at
improving health care for small children, as well as solving capacity challenges
of the hospital. Especially in cases with chronic conditions, being away from
family and friends can be traumatic for the patient and stressful for the
family involved. The AHH project started with an extensive medical literature
review, establishing evidence that hospitalization at home had great potential
without downgrading treatment quality. According to available studies, the
families and children did not have any adverse opinions about safety or
treatment. Instead, they reported greater well-being than during normal
hospitalization. The next step was the development of a simulation model
of costs and benefits of the AHH solution. The simulation showed indications
that home hospitalization could provide large cost savings over inpatient
practice. The major savings came from reducing overhead and salary costs.

Seizing the opportunity

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 101

Based on the indications from the literature and the simulation, the decision
was made to implement AHH as a part of the Child and Youth Clinic at the
hospital. Soon, however, it became clear that the AHH innovation was not
well anchored with the physicians in the clinic. Pediatric nurses were involved
early into the project, whereas the physicians would normally be at the top
of the clinic hierarchy, and the lack of a strong alliance with the physicians
seemed to inhibit the nurses’ commitment to and support of the project.
In addition, there was a challenge of understaffing, and therefore high
work pressure, at the clinic. To undertake the home treatment of children
demanded a different orientation towards practice, as well as a redesign of
the work processes. Even though the project was implemented, it did not
reach enough support and alignment with the management of the Child and
Youth Clinic to reach the estimated potential.

Transforming practices and capabilities over time

A few years later, AHH still operated with insufficient resources compared to
the identified need, and it could only extend treatment to a limited number
of patient groups. However, in line with the networking role of the Innovation
Clinic, activities were initiated to introduce AHH at an adjacent university
hospital, with higher management commitment and more resources. Despite
the challenges and shortcomings, the AHH project seemed to contribute
to the Innovation Clinic’s learning and thus development of innovation
capabilities, such as building coalitions, creating change and understanding
existing work practices. However, a good idea, good international medical
studies and great benefits for the patients and their families were not
enough. Resources, existing work practices, and top management support,
as well as support from the physicians, were identified as ingredients of high
importance. As such, this project contributed in the form of ‘trial and error
learning’, which, arguably, is necessary to develop both ordinary and dynamic
innovation capabilities in a complex organization.

The wound support network

Sensing and shaping opportunities

The Innovation Clinic became involved in two different projects related to
wounds. Through conversations with the wound treatment expert group at
the Department of Dermatology at the hospital, the IC learned that traveling
and waiting time at the hospital represent considerable challenges for
patients in need of treatment of severe – and sometimes chronic – wounds.

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
102 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

These patients typically live at nursing homes or have access to home nursing
services. Generally, the waiting times for this kind of treatment are long,
despite the fact that the probability of healing decreases the longer it takes
to get access to qualified help. One of the challenges is that the expertise on
wounds is located at the University Hospital, and not within the home health
service.

Seizing the opportunity

The key unit in what were referred to as ‘wound support networks’ were the
wound contact nurses who supported the home care service in a district.
When an innovation project was established to improve and document the
wound support network, three wound contact nurses became part of the
pilot in three different city districts. Their task was to provide specialized
insight into how to perform wound treatment, in order to support primary
care nurses in their respective districts. Thus, the wound contact nurses
served as a link between the hospital department and the primary health care
services. The wound contact nurses visited and helped all wound patients in
their districts, together with the home care service practitioners, every four
weeks during the three-month project period.
The Innovation Clinic used both qualitative and quantitative measures
in the study of wound healing rates, cost/benefit analyses, and studies of
knowledge transfer in the project. Economic indicators were used for the
hospital, for the municipality of Oslo and for the total picture across all service
providers. Improved clinical results were identified, in addition to the obvious
benefits to patients and primary care practitioners, and this also led to cost
savings. They estimated that the potential to reduce health care spending
could amount to more than USD 4000 per patient year.

Transforming practices and capabilities over time

A new economic challenge was identified, however: while reducing the total
costs by 37% in contrast to existing work processes, reducing the number of
patients would also reduce the income for the hospital by 26%. This loss of
compensation became a hurdle in implementing large-scale changes, despite
great benefits to most parties involved. In addition, changing the work
practices of the Department of Dermatology at the hospital was in itself not
an easy task.
Through this process, the Innovation Clinic learned more about how
the capability to analyze, create and implement service innovations, such
as the wound support network, could create large benefits to society, in
addition to significant cost savings. However, the University Hospital lacked
Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?
Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 103

financial incentives to implement the large-scale changes. The government

incentive system was not easy to change. Hence, from this project we can
learn that innovation capabilities might also need to be extended into the
area of economic organizing – to take care of economic incentives (in this
case, ruled by politicians and governmental actors), even at the level of
the ministry of health and care. Inter-disciplinary and inter-organizational
collaboration, such as collaboration between the government, the hospital
and municipalities, requires attention and willingness to change from the
respective top management groups, politicians and committed health care
personnel.

Outpatient Tele-Medicine treatment of wounds

Sensing and shaping opportunities

For a long time, telemedicine has been on the agenda in Norwegian hospitals,
mainly because of the country’s challenging geography. The technical solutions
have long been ready for use on smaller scales, but very few services have
capitalized on them. This second wound project was a collaborative project
with a specialized rehabilitation hospital, the Department of Biostatistics
and Epidemiology at the University of Oslo. The Innovation Clinic served as
advisors on the project, estimating the costs and benefits of the new forms
of treatment to society.

Seizing the opportunity

The project started by investigating the hypothesis: What would be the
benefits to society be if we used telemedicine to treat back wounds and
pressure wounds? Treatment of wounds in this patient group is complicated
and requires a high level of expertise and continuous observation. The
downside of unsuccessful treatment is clear: If the cure process shows
adverse effects, amputation may be necessary. As mentioned, this project
was located at a specialized rehabilitation hospital, and a goal of the project
was to explore the benefits of using outpatient tele-medicine on a larger
scale.
Patients with severe back injuries as a result of traffic accidents, sports
accidents, or diseases were the primary targets. Seven patients with severe
back injuries, having lived with this condition for between 5 and 46 years, were
enrolled in the project. They had previously experienced between 33 and 601
days of hospitalization. In terms of health care professionals, three home care
employees joined the project. The results of this preliminary test showed

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
104 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

that all patients were very satisfied by the treatment via videoconference. On
the other hand, they missed the social contact and knowledge sharing with
fellow patients.
A core idea behind the project was to help patients avoid hospitalization
by supporting home care service teams via telemedicine. In this way, local
home care service personnel got new skills and updated knowledge on
treating severe wounds. It was found that the time used to treat patients via
this method was shorter than at the hospital. However, it took some time at
the first treatment in order to set up the video conference equipment and to
coordinate the different professionals involved. Estimates showed that the
national potential for cost savings could amount to around USD 52 million.
The remaining factor of uncertainty was the risk of re-hospitalization in cases
in which wounds did not heal according to expectations; still, however, the
economic potential was significant. In addition, the new practice provided
substantial benefits to the patients and more efficient utilization of the
expertise at the rehabilitation hospital.

Transforming practices and capabilities over time

This project showed how innovations related to outpatient telemedicine
treatment could be used in several novel areas, potentially with large
economic benefits to society (see also Irgens et al., 2015). In addition, the
project participants gained experience in using new methods and ways of
organizing the work processes and service provision to create less strain for
the patients. The weight of the evidence in terms of economic, clinical and
patient satisfaction benefits, alongside several similar projects elsewhere,
seemed to produce broader agreement among national stakeholders
regarding the need for national policy, strategy and funding for scaling
telemedicine services. Still, at the time of our study, the long-term outcomes
remained to be seen. To sum up, the innovation activities demonstrated
in this project, similar to previous projects, required the involvement and
coordination of several professional groups, top-down anchoring of the
change process, and bottom-up mobilization of resources.

Breast cancer diagnostics

The last project we will present in our analysis of innovation capabilities at
the university hospital ultimately had a large-scale impact on the treatment
of patients. The outcome was a major service innovation that made the
national headlines both during and after the innovation process.

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 105

Sensing and shaping opportunities

Before this project, when a breast tumor was detected, patients were
typically forwarded to the hospital by a general practitioner, with the next
stage consisting of a set of activities to diagnose whether or not the tumor
was dangerous. Through initial explorative investigations, they learned
that one of the most difficult challenges was the high variation in the
information collected by the general practitioners. In addition, there are
many different professionals involved in breast cancer diagnosis, such as
general practitioners, radiologists, pathologists and oncologists. To add to the
complexity of the process, the hospital’s treatment activities were organized
at two different locations and with different work processes. In sum, these
aspects led to severe coordination problems across different professional
groups, departments and organizations, which resulted in long waiting times
for the patients.

Seizing the opportunity

The ambitious goal of this project was to reduce the waiting times by 75%,
at least for the diagnosis process. The project was designed to improve
efficiency, effectiveness, and service quality, as well as patient satisfaction.
This time, the project group was successful in mobilizing commitment and
participation by the top management of the University Hospital, as well as
by leaders at the relevant clinics. A design-based innovation approach was
used, and patient experiences were investigated through semi-structured
interviews. Coordination and collaboration challenges were explored through
multi-stakeholder workshops, leading to streamlining information flows and
requirements, patient flows, and more efficient resource utilization. This
time, no economic aspects were investigated in the first part of the project.
An economic analysis was conducted at a later stage, comparing in-house
treatment to outsourced solutions.

Transforming practices and capabilities over time

As a direct result of the project, work processes were permanently re-
configured across the participating actors, reducing waiting times for breast
cancer diagnosis by 90%. Before this tremendous improvement, the patients
were usually left with unanswered questions and distress for months;
afterward, the average waiting times decreased from 12 weeks to less than
48 hours. The hospital demonstrated service and organizational innovation
capabilities at a new level. The project’s success in mobilizing professionals
across several disciplines, gaining legitimacy from top management, and
facilitating the re-organization of work processes gained wide attention.
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),
Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
106 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

To sum up, a rather complex set of investigations and interventions were

combined to achieve ambitious aims, including the ability to choose a
project with strategic impact, and with the potential to attract attention both
internally and externally.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the discussion of the capabilities and the dynamic capabilities

literature, as well as the subsequent presentation of the Innovation Clinic case
study, we will in the following paragraphs discuss the development of dynamic
innovation capabilities. We will also develop an argument for the relative
importance of making innovation capabilities dynamic. In our investigation of
the Innovation Clinic, we saw the emergence of a set of routines, methods and
actions resembling innovation capabilities, particularly related to service and
organizational innovation. As argued in the literature section, such innovation
capabilities may in some cases be classified as ordinary capabilities. We need,
therefore, to discuss the premises for dynamic innovation capabilities.
There are several conceptual discussions in the literature regarding
what dynamic capabilities can be and what they are not (e.g., Teece, 2007,
2012, 2014). A remaining challenge is to produce empirical insights into how
dynamic capabilities can be understood, as well as how we can identify and
understand their sources and development. We suggest that the emerging
service and organizational innovation capabilities we have identified in this
case study can be categorized as dynamic. The reason for this, we would
argue, is that they seemed to be (1) applicable to different service areas or
markets, (2) evolving over time, and (3) transferable to various actors and
coalitions within the organizational space.
In our case study presentation, we used the three criteria of sensing,
seizing and transforming (Teece, 2014) to identify the capabilities involved in
the Innovation Clinic. Due to the relatively short time span of our empirical
study, we cannot argue categorically that the Innovation Clinic contributed
to dynamic innovation capabilities across the University Hospital at large, as
there are, of course, other forces in motion. Likewise, we cannot be sure that
the identified capabilities remained dynamic over longer periods of time.
Still, the Innovation Clinic was clearly set up with this purpose. As far as we
could observe, the Innovation Clinic worked to facilitate strategic innovation,
to change ordinary capabilities over time, and to develop innovation
capabilities in new areas through its different projects. This was done both
within and at the borders of the organization and the surrounding network
of actors. One of the important questions in this theoretical landscape is this;

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 107

What makes organizational capabilities dynamic, and, more specifically, how

are dynamic innovation capabilities constituted? Answers to this question
should be sought in the interface between the theoretical framework and
empirical research. From our case study, we find that dynamic innovation
capabilities may emerge from a combination of entrepreneurial management
and organizational elements, much in line with Teece’s (2012, 2014)
conceptualization of dynamic capabilities. Before going further into the
discussion of dynamic innovation capabilities, we will first take a closer look
at the role of organizational elements and of entrepreneurial management.

Organizational elements
In the case study, we identified the systematic development of particular
processes, methods and routines in the work of the Innovation Clinic.
Some of these organizational elements related to sensing by focusing on
‘capturing’ needs and opportunities within and across hospital clinics and
departments, and then performing initial evaluations or simulations of the
potential benefits of developing a solution to the problem. Further, several
of the organizational elements related to seizing, in that they were set up
to support the mobilization of resources. Arguably, some of the trial-and-
error learning procedures also contributed to seizing, as they were primarily
helping the local project to develop unique solutions to the current problem
at stake. Other parts of the trial-and-error activities pointed more towards
the transformation of capabilities across settings and time. The tools for
simulating, modelling and evaluating service innovations were continuously
developed across all the projects, gradually increasing the argumentative
power of top management and other stakeholders. Project by project, the IC
personnel learned more about a number of important barriers and enablers
that needed attention, as well as about the tactics of managing innovation
processes.
By partially emulating and modifying common methods and routines
in medicine, such as medical cases, clinical trials and health technology
assessments, the IC gradually maneuvered into a position from which
they could advocate for what we would call innovation routines. Some of
the routines for innovations included a digital idea portal, new methods
such as service design methods; a method for modelling, simulating and
assessing innovations; and stepwise trial-and-error processes facilitated by
the Innovation Clinic team. As shown in the case study, the major aim of
the Innovation Clinic was to challenge the status quo by facilitating service
innovation throughout the organization. They pursued relatively radical ideas
of patient-centricity, mobile and digital service provision, and inter-disciplinary

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
108 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

and inter-organizational reconfiguration of services. Hence, we can suggest,

firstly, that the Innovation Clinic was set up to create or strengthen the
dynamic innovation capabilities of the organization, and secondly, that the
IC demonstrated some success in actually facilitating dynamic capabilities,
although not without difficulties and limitations.
More operational innovation activities, such as ‘lean’ projects, as
well as more radical changes strictly related to advanced and specialized
medical procedures, were left to each of the medical clinics and the general
administration. This is not to say, however, that specialized medical innovation
capabilities do not need to be dynamic. Indeed, the hospital had already
established other units to facilitate innovation in certain advanced medical
technologies (see, e.g., Mørk et al., 2012, on medical innovation). Still,
hospitals have traditionally shown a stronger ability to make radical shifts
related to highly specialized medicine, while generally under-performing on
innovation related to service, coordination and organization.

Entrepreneurial management
While important, organizational processes, routines and methods are
probably not sufficient to maintain innovation capabilities dynamically
over time. We would expect such organizational elements to easily become
specialized and limited to narrow aspects of practice or, alternatively, to
stabilize into inflexible and self-referencing procedures over time. Hence,
entrepreneurial management seems to be important for the ‘dynamic’
element of innovation capabilities. In our case study, the Innovation Clinic
performed a strong entrepreneurial role in the organization and its network
of partners and stakeholders. Notice, for example, how the Innovation Clinic
personnel worked very proactively in identifying clinical managers with
‘mature problems’, who were therefore ready to collaborate to find novel
solutions. They also focused on building alliances with research institutions,
administrators of innovation policy instruments and funding, and the
hospital’s important partners, such as primary health care providers.
Any organizational routine or method may soon become stiff and
contribute more to conserving and incrementally improving established
practices than to reorientation and radical innovation. It seems necessary to
maintain active boundary spanning across the organization and its network,
visionary agenda setting, and competent change management in order
to stay alert to sensing, seizing and transforming capabilities in order to
creatively adapt to changing environments. Reflecting on the case study, we
can see that the ‘dynamic’ aspect is precarious; it seems that the dynamism
of this organizational setup relies mainly on only a few individuals in the

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 109

Innovation Clinic and their combined experience, attitudes, social networks,

and competencies. It is therefore a potent question to ask to what extent the
university hospital may be seen to develop and maintain dynamic innovation
capabilities in the long run (i.e., beyond the timeframe of our study).
We suggest, in line with Teece (2012), that it is precisely this combination
of particular routines, processes and methods, with a strong entrepreneurial
management role, that may facilitate the emergence of dynamic innovation
capabilities over time. The presence of entrepreneurial management without
the necessary organizational elements in place would most likely produce
innovation capabilities that are utopian, fragmented, and short-lived. On the
other hand, to install organizational routines to support innovation, without
entrepreneurial roles, could quickly lead to non-dynamic and inflexible
arrangements, at best classified as functional or ordinary innovation
capabilities. This leads to the following question: How can entrepreneurship
be maintained over time? Stark (2009) and Moreira (2012) identified
‘entrepreneurship’ as embedded into organizational configurations and,
thereby, possibly achieving a more robust entrepreneurial organizational
role than the more individual and team-based model identified in our case
study. Stark (2009) argues that ‘heterarchical’ arrangements may be put in
place, in which multiple and competing principles and criteria of evaluation
are regularly allowed to confront each other, to challenge the status quo,
and to produce novel interpretations of opportunities and resources. We find
this way of performing and organizing the entrepreneurial role beyond the
individual level in organizations to be a highly interesting avenue for further
research.

Nurturing dynamic innovation capabilities

Finally, we will discuss the importance of nurturing dynamic innovation
capabilities, relative to functional innovation capabilities, for strategic
management. While the systematic and incremental improvements
typically produced in the daily activities of highly specialized and competent
organizations like this University Hospital provide considerable value, we find
reasons to argue that the dynamic aspects deserve more attention from the
top management of large and complex service organizations. Some authors
have claimed that the continuous improvements during daily activities
account for a larger share of value creation than the earlier radical leaps that
brought the organization onto the new path. Still, looking at a large university
hospital, we can see how, at least in relation to medical procedures, quality
improvement work is already in place, permeating the whole clinical
organization; every medical profession is trained for systematic improvement

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
110 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

and is rewarded for merit in mastering established practices. This system

of merits and rewards, of course needs to be regulated, monitored and
encouraged, but, still, the nurturing of dynamic capabilities remains to be
handled by many top management teams. A public and research-oriented
service organization like the University Hospital may be seen as a strong case
in this respect, having more stakeholders and a more complex mandate than
many private firms but an equally fast-changing environment.
In terms of analytical insights from this study, we started out with
the research question regarding understanding the relationship between
dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities. The various definitions and
subsequent theories on dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities
overlap somewhat and are sometimes unclear and inconsistent (Breznik
& Hisrich, 2014). This has been the starting point for this investigation. As
we have seen, there are several definitions of dynamic capabilities and of
innovation capabilities. For practical and operational purposes, we chose
Teece’s (2009) conceptualization of dynamic capabilities as a way to sense
and seize opportunities, and transform assets. From the empirical data and
our analysis based on Teece (2009; 2014), we observed how some projects
were adopted and realized in the larger organizational system, while other
projects faced more difficulties in realizing their aims.
We saw how the capabilities to sense opportunities could be developed
relatively easily, such as through initiating dialogues with clinical managers
about their experienced challenges and problems. Seizing and transforming,
on the other hand, required systematic learning over time in order to develop
methods for estimating and evaluating value to the organization and its
partners, as well as managing attention and alignment of interests in other
ways. Hence, dynamic innovation capabilities seem to be realizable through
relatively advanced combinations of methods, routines and processes on the
one hand and entrepreneurial management on the other.
The concept of dynamic capabilities was developed in the field of
strategic management research. On the other hand, innovation capabilities
emerged from studies on innovation and must be regarded with this in mind.
From the project universe of the Innovation Clinic, innovation capabilities
arose as closely related to innovation practices, while dynamic capabilities,
ensuring long-term adaptation and survival, seem to require transformational
capacities at both the operational and the strategic levels of the organization.
There are clearly overlaps, and in some periods the innovation capabilities
may contribute to modify or interact with dynamic capabilities, while in
other periods innovation capabilities seem to be more functional as parts of
the daily practices of the innovation clinic and other organizational units. As
discussed by Winter (2003), it is sometimes difficult to know exactly when a
Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?
Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 111

capability is dynamic and when it is operational. To some extent, we can only

understand and analyze afterwards whether learning, change or modification
of routines has occurred.

CONCLUSION

Our ambition in this paper has been to gain a better understanding of what
makes organizational capabilities dynamic and, more specifically, how
dynamic capabilities can be constituted and nurtured. We utilized Teece’s
(2007; 2014) framework on dynamic capabilities as an analytic framework,
in order to elaborate on the existing theory. From our analysis of the four
different projects, we argue that dynamic innovation capabilities comprise
the following elements. Firstly, the systematic development of processes,
methods and routines was related to sensing and seizing opportunities – or, as
it was phrased by the Innovation Clinic, ‘capturing’ needs – and subsequently
working systematically with iterative development and implementation.
Secondly, the role of entrepreneurship produced dynamics related to sensing
and was, perhaps, particularly important for seizing by mobilizing resources
and aligning stakeholders with diverging interests in the innovation. Thirdly,
the combination of strategic and entrepreneurial management of innovation
across time and domains may serve to support the continued capacity for
transformation.
In terms of managerial implications, we argue that managers should be
particularly oriented towards the following factors to develop innovation
capabilities:
•• Systematic development of processes, methods and routines to
sense and seize opportunities, including the facilitation of inter-group
learning, the evaluation of innovation hurdles and potential value,
and iterative and effective implementation.
•• Organizing and nurturing entrepreneurial roles, in the organization
and its network, of partners and stakeholders, as well as the
subsequent entrepreneurial management to make innovation and
transformation happen.
•• Nurturing dynamic innovation capabilities instead of focusing only
on functional innovation capabilities, by emphasizing innovation
capabilities at both the operational and strategic levels, hence
becoming an integrated part of strategic management and execution.
As a final note, we would like to pinpoint some of the limitations of
our current study of dynamic capabilities and innovation capabilities. First,
the time span of this study is too limited to ensure that we fully understand
the nature of dynamic innovation capabilities, and it might be preferable

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
112 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

for capabilities to last through more than one business cycle in order to be
clearly dynamic. There is a need for longitudinal studies of the development
of dynamic capabilities, innovation capabilities and dynamic innovation
capabilities, in order to be sure that the capabilities are really dynamic over
time. Second, this study is of a public organization, whereas the concept of
competitive advantage might be more natural in a corporate setting. The
nature of competition for resources and endowments in a public organization
differ from that of private enterprises. However, we argue that long-time
adaptation to the environment is as important for public sector organizations
in general and for university hospitals in particular, as for private firms.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to gain a better grasp on how dynamic
capabilities alter operational innovation capabilities. Many firms and public
sector organizations employ institutional mechanisms similar to those of
the innovation clinic, with various levels of success. Comparative studies of
various institutional mechanisms that contribute to innovation in larger for-
profit and not-for-profit organizations would be highly interesting.
In this case study, we have investigated an Innovation Clinic’s efforts
to develop service and organizational innovation capabilities over time
and across several settings. We have demonstrated how the conscious
development and employment of innovation routines and methods at
the project and organizational levels, in combination with entrepreneurial
management, may well contribute to developing innovation capabilities.
The development of such combinations, however, is not likely to be easy,
considering the significant number of institutional, organizational, epistemic
and financial elements to be upgraded and recombined for project outcomes
to stabilize and scale, in addition to the challenges of utilizing the experiences
of such efforts for building dynamic innovation capabilities across settings and
over time. Due to the limited time-span and scope of our case study, we are
only partially able to shed light on one crucial aspect of dynamic capabilities
– namely, the ‘transformation’ of capabilities across time and space. The
emergent learning and development of methods and routines across the
series of multi-stakeholder projects seems to be in line with Teece’s (2009)
conceptualization of dynamic capabilities. Nevertheless, it was not possible
within the time limits of our study to evaluate whether we are seeing the
transformation of capabilities in ways that significantly contribute to the
renewal of the hospital over time and across a variety of contextual changes.

Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude for the constructive and helpful
comments of the special issue editors Karl Joachim Breunig and Tor Helge

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 113

Aas, as well as the anonymous reviewers. This study is part of the SfI Centre
for Connected Care, with funding from the Research Council of Norway.

References
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent.
Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of
Corporate Planning and Investment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Breznik, L., & D. Hisrich, R. (2014). Dynamic capabilities vs. innovation
capability: Are they related? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 21(3), 368-384.
Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. (1992). Strategy process research: Focusing on
corporate self‐renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 5-14.
Collis, D. J. (1994). Research note: How valuable are organizational
capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 143-152.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of
competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive
approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2014). “Systematic combining”—A decade later.
Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1277-1284.
Easterby‐Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities:
Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management,
20(S1), S1-S8.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are
they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in
small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service
sectors. Research Policy, 40(5), 739-750.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic
change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.
Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2003). Innovative capability and export performance of
Chinese firms. Technovation, 23(9), 737-747.
den Hertog, P., van der Aa, W., & de Jong, M. W. (2010). Capabilities for
managing service innovation: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal
of Service Management, 21(4), 490-514.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). Corporate imagination and expeditionary
marketing. Harvard Business Review, 69(4), 81-92.

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),

Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
114 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource‐based view:

Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D.,
& Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic
Change in Organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational
capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever‐changing world. Strategic
Management Journal, 32(11), 1243-1250.
Hoholm, T., & Araujo, L. (2011). Studying innovation processes in real-time:
The promises and challenges of ethnography. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(6), 933-939.
Irgens, I., Kleven, L., Sørli, H., Stanghelle, J.K., & Rekand, T. (2015). Telemedisin
bringer spesialisthelsetjenesten hjem til pasienten. Tidsskriftet for den
Norske Legeforening, 19, 1716-7.
Itami, H., & Roehl, T. (1987). Mobilizing Invisible Assets. Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London, England, Harvard University Press.
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., & Regnèr, P. (2014).
Exploring Strategy Text & Cases. Harlow, England. Pearson Higher Ed.
Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation
capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 9(4), 396-417.
La Rocca, A., Hoholm, T., & Mørk, B. E. (2016). Practice theory and the
study of interaction in business relationships: Some methodological
implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 60, 187-195.
Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in
organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 5(3), 377-400.
Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox
in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,
13(S1), 111-125.
Moreira, T. (2013). The Transformation of Contemporary Health Care: The
Market, the Laboratory, and the Forum. New York: Routledge.
Oskaya, H. E. (2011). The antecedents and consequences of innovation
capabilities (Ph.D. dissertation). Michigan State University.
Ozkaya, H. E., Droge, C., Hult, G. T. M., Calantone, R., & Ozkaya, E. (2015).
Market orientation, knowledge competence, and innovation.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(3), 309-318.
Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Firm. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Petapixel.com. (2015). Retrieved November 4, 2016, from http://petapixel.
com /2015/12/05/interchangeable-lens-camera-market-share-in-2014/
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industry
and Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. (1997). How much does industry matter,
really? Strategic Management Journal, 15-30.

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)
 Fred Strønen, Thomas Hoholm, Kari Kværner, and Linn Nathalie Støme / 115

Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management

Journal, 12(3), 167-185.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-
based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining
competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777-802.
Stark, D. (2009). The Sense of Dissonance. Accounts of Worth in Economic
Life. Princeton University Press.
Teece, D. J. (1976). Multinational Corporation and the Resource Cost of
International Technology Transfer. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing
Company.
Teece, D. J. (1980). Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(3), 223-247.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and
microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial
action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395-1401.
Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and
ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328-352.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Terziovski, M. (2007). Building innovation capability in organizations: an
international cross-case perspective (Vol. 13). World Scientific.
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1),
31-51.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic
Management Journal, 24(10), 991-995.
Wang, C. H., Lu, I. Y., & Chen, C. B. (2008). Evaluating firm technological
innovation capability under uncertainty. Technovation, 28(6), 349-363.
Yam, R. C., Guan, J. C., Pun, K. F., & Tang, E. P. (2004). An audit of technological
innovation capabilities in Chinese firms: Some empirical findings in
Beijing, China. Research Policy, 33(8), 1123-1140.

Abstract (in Polish)

W badaniu tym zbadamy zależność między dynamicznymi zdolnościami a
innowacyjnością. Dynamiczne zdolności są podstawą zarządzania strategicznego,
jeśli chodzi o to, jak firmy mogą zapewnić adaptację do zmieniających się warunków
w czasie. Nasz artykuł przedstawia dwie ścieżki argumentacji. Najpierw przeanali-
zujemy i przedyskutujemy znaczący wkład w teorie dotyczące zwykłych zdolności,
zdolności dynamicznych i zdolności innowacyjnych. Staramy się zidentyfikować różne
rozumienie omawianych pojęć, aby wyjaśnić różnice i relacje pomiędzy dynamicznymi
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI),
Volume 13, Issue 1, 2017: 89-116
116 / Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Capabilities: The Case of the
‘Innovation Clinic’

zdolnościami a zdolnościami innowacyjnymi. Po drugie przedstawiamy studium przy-

padku „Kliniki Innowacji” w głównym szpitalu uniwersyteckim, w tym cztery projekty
innowacyjne. Korzystamy z tego studium przypadku w celu zbadania i omówienia
sposobów rozszerzania zdolności dynamicznych, a także w jakim zakresie zdolności
innowacyjne można uznać za dynamiczne. Podsumowując, dyskutujemy o uwa-
runkowaniach rozwijania „dynamicznych zdolności innowacyjnych” w organizacjach.
Słowa kluczowe: zdolności dynamiczne; zdolności innowacyjne; innowacyjność usług;
opieka zdrowotna.

Biographical notes

Fred Strønen, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Oslo Business School,

Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, where he teaches
business strategy. His research interests are in strategic management,
organizational change, knowledge-intensive firms and professional service
firms. Contact: [email protected].

Thomas Hoholm, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the BI Norwegian

Business School and is associated with the Centre for Connected Care. With
a background in organization theory, science and technology studies, and
industrial networks, his research interests relate to organizational learning,
innovation management and innovation processes. Contact: thomas.
hoholm@ bi.no.

Kari J. Kværner, Ph.D., is the CEO of the Centre for Connected Care, a
Research-based Innovation Centre (SFI) at Oslo University Hospital and
Professor of health care innovation at the BI Norwegian Business School. She
has a medical background as an ear, nose and throat specialist. Her academic
interests are related to health care innovation and commercialization, health
care management and economics. Contact: [email protected].

Linn Nathalie Støme, MSc in Economics, is a Ph.D. fellow in health economics

at the Centre for Connected Care, a Research-based Innovation Centre (SFI)
at Oslo University Hospital. Her main area of research is early assessment of
health innovation. Contact: [email protected].

Innovation Capabilities: Affirming an Oxymoron?

Tor Helge Aas and Karl Joachim Breunig (Eds.)