In their study Dynamic Capabilities, Deliberate Learning and Environmental Dynamism: a Simulation Model, Romme, Zollo, and Berends aimed to define the effects of deliberate learning – DL (with its integral components being the experience accumulation – AE, knowledge articulation – KA and knowledge codification – KC) on the extent of an organization’s dynamic capability. For this purpose, the authors conducted a number of simulation experiments (concerned with simulating the impacts of the earlier mentioned forms of DL on the operational routines – OR), during the course of which it was determined that, contrary to what many researchers tend to assume, the effects of this type of learning on the organization’s systemic functioning are rather counterintuitive. As the authors pointed out: “The simulation experiments… demonstrate that the impact of deliberate learning on dynamic capability is non-linear and complex in nature” (1290). Hence, the foremost idea that is being promoted throughout the study’s entirety: “Increasing levels of deliberate learning investments produce both positive and negative effects on the organization’s ability to adapt its operations” (1275). According to Romme, Zollo, and Berends, this can be explained by the fact that, even though the knowledge-related intensification of OR does result in increasing the measure of a particular organization’s operational flexibility, this comes at the expense of the same organization being required to invest into the process a number of often scarcely available resources. The authors also point out the additional factors that contribute to the above-mentioned phenomenon, such as the fact that the functioning of just about any organization can be discussed in terms of thermodynamics. This, of course, implies that the long-term effects of how managers go about ensuring the organization’s continual competitiveness cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty. What adds even more to such a state of affairs is that there is the element of a cognitive subjectivity to how managers/employees perceive the notion of DL, in the first place.
Even though the study by Romme, Zollo, and Berends, does help readers to obtain a number of in-depth insights into how DL affects the structural/functional integrity of an organization, it cannot be referred to as such that represents a high practical value. The authors’ main flaw, in this respect, appears to be the fact that, while understanding perfectly well that, due to the concerned subject matter’s relativist essence, it cannot be thoroughly rationalized, they nevertheless proceeded to tackle the issue within the rationale-based methodological framework. As a result, the study in question ended up containing several semi-mathematical formulas/equations, which given the sheer subjectivity of the issue at stake, appear utterly out of place. This is exactly the reason why one of the study’s main conclusions, concerned with the idea that: “Distinguishing (for example) between market, institutional and technological dynamism might be a fruitful avenue for future work in this area” (1292), can be best referred to in terms of a commonplace knowledge, rather than in terms of a scientific breakthrough.
The study’s other drawback can be well considered the fact that, due to being 100% simulative (with no experiments having been conducted out in the field), it can hardly be considered as the practical tool of empowering managers. This provides us with a legitimate rationale to speculate that the main motivation to proceed with conducting this study, on the authors’ part, was their desire to obtain the additional academic credits, as a ‘thing in itself.
Works Cited
Romme, Georges; Zollo, Maurizio and Peter Berends. “Dynamic Capabilities,
Deliberate Learning and Environmental Dynamism: A Simulation Model.” Industrial and Corporate Change 19.4 (2010): 1271–1299. Print.