Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Achieving dynamic capabilities with cloud computing: an empirical investigation

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Cloud computing enables convenient and on-demand access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources. While cloud computing‘s ability to improve operational efficiency has gained much attention in the literature, there has been limited research on how it can help organizations achieve dynamic capabilities. Drawing from dynamic capabilities theory, we conducted a field study using a multiple case study design to examine the following research question: How do organizations achieve dynamic capabilities by using Cloud Computing? We develop a framework that explains how organizations respond to market dynamism by developing sense-and-response strategies that enable them to achieve dynamic capabilities using business process redesign, business network redesign, and business scope redefinition. We discuss how these transformations, in turn, improve organizational outcomes such as service effectiveness and efficiency. Our study also identifies factors that support and hinder the development of dynamic capabilities. Our study contributes to the literature on dynamic capabilities by examining how IT capabilities like cloud computing may accelerate the ability of an organization to achieve dynamic capabilities. We also identify transformational changes of business processes and inter-organizational networks that are enabled by cloud computing. Further, we identify how the essential characteristics of cloud computing support sense and respond strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alam MS, Guild PD and Sparkes DI (2013) Market-scanning capability-a scale to measure firms’ ability to sense or respond to the changes in the marketplace. International Journal of Business and Management 8 (4), 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M and Carlson P (1992) A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal of Management Information Systems 8 (4), 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit R and Zott C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal 22 (6–7), 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbrust M et al (2010) A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM 53 (4), 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora A and Nandkumar A (2012) Insecure advantage? Markets for technology and the value of resources for entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Management Journal 33 (3), 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Bardhan IR, Chang H and Lin S (2006) Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance. MIS Quarterly 30 (2), 315–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney J, Wright M and Ketchen Jr. DJ (2001) The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after 1991. Journal of Management 27 (6), 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreto I (2010) Dynamic capabilities: a review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management 36 (1), 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley P and Jackson K (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. Sage Publications Limited, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein D, Ludvigson E, Sankar K, Diamond S and Morrow M (2009) Blueprint for the intercloud-protocols and formats for cloud computing interoperability. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services pp 328–336, IEEE, Venice.

  • Besson P and Rowe F (2012) Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: a transdisciplinary review and new directions. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21 (2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj A and Sambamurthy V (2005) Enterprise Agility and Information Technology Management: The CIO's Manifesto. SIM Advanced Practices Council Publication, Mount Laurel, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 24 (1), 169–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau M-C and Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science 16 (1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown B (2013) IT budgets, salaries & priorities: 2013 SIM IT trends study. [WWW document] http://www.cio.com/slideshow/detail/128158#slide12 (accessed 15 December 2013).

  • Brown SL and Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler T and Murphy C (2008) An exploratory study on IS capabilities and assets in a small-to-medium software enterprise. Journal of Information Technology 23 (4), 330–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buyya R, Yeo CS and Venugopal S (2008) Market-oriented cloud computing: vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, pp 5–13, Dalian.

  • Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2001) Doing critical IS research: the question of methodology. In Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends (Traut EM, Ed), pp 141–162, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty A, Grewal R and Sambamurthy V (2013) Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: enabling and facilitating roles. Information Systems Research 24 (4), 976–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan DL (2012) Developing dynamic capabilities in the technological library environment. In Conference on GenNext Libraries, Universiti Brunei Darussalam Library, Brunei.

  • Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiasson MW and Davidson E (2004) Pushing the contextual envelope: developing and diffusing IS theory for health information systems research. Information and Organization 14 (3), 155–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemons EK and Row MC (1991) Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences. MIS Quarterly 15 (3), 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner KR and Prahalad CK (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science 7 (5), 477–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordella A and Iannacci F (2010) Information systems in the public sector: the e-government enactment framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19 (1), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D'Aveni RA (1994) Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel EM and Wilson HN (2003) The role of dynamic capabilities in e-business transformation. European Journal of Information Systems 12 (4), 282–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Corbiere F and Rowe F (2013) From ideal data synchronization to hybrid forms of interconnections: architectures, processes, and data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14 (10), 550–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deltek (2012) Budget and cloud computing top list of biggest impact. Deltek Survey, GovWin IQ from Deltek.

  • Dillon T, Wu C and Chang E (2010) Cloud computing: issues and challenges. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp 27–33, Perth, Australia.

  • Dubé L and Paré G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly 27 (4), 597–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA and Peteraf MA (2009) Dynamic capabilities: current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management 20 (s1), S1–S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM and Pisano GP (2001) Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (4), 685–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Brown SL (1999) Patching. restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review 77 (3), 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Galunic DC (2000) Coevolving: at last, a way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review 78 (1), 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21 (10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Sull DN (2001) Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review 79 (1), 106–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Sawy OA and Pavlou PA (2008) IT-enabled business capabilities for turbulent environments. MIS Quarterly Executive 7 (3), 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson T (2014) Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Management 30 (1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner (2013) Gartner Hype Cycle for Cloud Computing. Gartner Group, Stamford, CT.

  • Gavetti G and Levinthal D (2000) Looking forward and looking backward: cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (1), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Strauss AL (2009) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7 (4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel SH (1999) Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE et al (2009) Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Wiley.com, Hoboken, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE and Winter SG (2011) Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: strategy for the (N)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal 32 (11), 1243–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson RM and Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman AM and Miles MB (2002) The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer B and Henderson JC (2010) Preparing for the future: understanding the seven capabilities of cloud computing. MIS Quarterly Executive 9 (2), 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung C, Gevaudan C, Estes M, Spence C, Fichadia P and Skipp R (2013) Open data center alliance usage model: cloud maturity model rev. 2.5. [WWW document] http://www.opendatacenteralliance.org/docs/cloud_maturity_model_rev_2.5.pdf (accessed 14 October 2013).

  • Karimi-Alaghehband F and Rivard S (2010) The strategic role of information technology sourcing: a dynamic capabilities perspective. In Proceedings of the Thrity First International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, St. Louis.

  • Knickle K et al (2013) IDC maturityscape: cloud – a guide for success. [WWW document] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=239772 (accessed 22 October 2013).

  • Koch H (2010) Developing dynamic capabilities in electronic marketplaces: a cross-case study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19 (1), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K and van Hillegersberg J (2000) Enterprise resource planning: introduction. Communications of the ACM 43 (4), 22–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee O-K, Sambamurthy V, Lim K and Wei KK (2015) How does IT ambidexterity impact organizational agility. Information Systems Research 26 (2), 398–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee O-KD (2012) IT-enabled organizational transformations to achieve business agility. Review of Business Information Systems 16 (2), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepak DP, Smith KG and Taylor MS (2007) Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review 32 (1), 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levina N and Ross JW (2003) From the vendor’s perspective: exploring the value proposition in information technology outsourcing. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 331–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y and Ramamurthy K (2011) Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination. MIS Quarterly 35 (4), 931–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and Rose GM (2003) The disruptive nature of information technology innovations: the case of internet computing in systems development organizations. MIS Quarterly 27 (4), 557–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and Rose GM (2006) Information system development agility as organizational learning. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (2), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1989) Case selection in a disconfirmatory case study. In The Information Systems Research Challenge: Qualitative Research Methods (Cash JI and Lawrence PR, Eds), Vol. 1, pp 20–26, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason J (2002) Qualitative Researching. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiassen L and Vainio AM (2007) Dynamic capabilities in small software firms: a sense-and-respond approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (3), 522–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattoon S, Hensle B and Baty J Eds (2011) Cloud Computing Maturity Model Guiding Success with Cloud Capabilities. Oracle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mell P and Grance T (2011) The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing – Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montealegre R (2002) A process model of capability development: lessons from the electronic commerce strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil. Organization Science 13 (5), 514–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers MD (1997) Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 21 (2), 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalchigar S and Yu E (2013) From business intelligence insights to actions: a methodology for closing the sense-and-respond loop in the adaptive enterprise. In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling (Grabis J, Kirikova M, Zdravkovic J and Stirna J, Eds), pp 114–128, Springer, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan B and Nichols R (2011a) State of cloud applications and platforms: the cloud adopter’s view. Computer 44 (3), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan B and Nichols R (2011b) State of cloud applications and platforms: the cloud adopters' view. Computer 44 (3), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (1991) Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal 12 (S2), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR and Winter SG (2009) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann S and Fink L (2007) Gaining agility through IT personnel capabilities: the mediating role of IT infrastructure capabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (8), 440–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17 (3), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overby E, Bharadwaj A and Sambamurthy V (2006) Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (2), 120–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré G (2004) Investigating information systems with positivist case study research. Communications of AIS 2004 (13), 233–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MP (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA and El Sawy OA (2006) From IT competence to comeptitive advantage in turbulent environments: the case of new product development. Information Systems Research 17 (3), 198–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou PA and El Sawy OA (2011) Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences 42 (1), 239–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski S and Robey D (2004) Bridging user organizations: knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quarterly 28 (4), 645–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14 (3), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed R and DeFillippi RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 15 (1), 88–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V, Bharadhwaj A and Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), 237–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt T and Mathiassen L (2009) Agility in a small software firm: a sense-and-respond analysis. International Journal of Business Information Systems 4 (1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sher PJ and Lee VC (2004) Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information & Management 41 (8), 933–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh R, Mathiassen L, Stachura ME and Astapova EV (2011) Dynamic capabilities in home health: IT-enabled transformation of post-acute care. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12 (SI), 163–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KG, Grimm CM and Gannon MJ (1992) Dynamics of Competitive Strategy. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publication, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultan N and van de Bunt-Kokhuis S (2012) Organisational culture and cloud computing: coping with a disruptive innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24 (2), 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan CW, Lim ETK, Pan S-L and Chan ML (2004) Enterprise system as an orchestrator for dynamic capability development: a case study of the IRAS and TechCo. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2, Manchester, UK.

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28 (13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ, Pisano G and Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippins MJ and Sohi RS (2003) IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal 24 (8), 745–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivedi H (2013) Cloud computing adoption model for governments and large enterprises. In Management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman M and Nadler D (1986) Organizing for innovation. California Management Review 28 (3), 74–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unicom (2013) Cloud computing maturity model. [WWW document] http://unicomgov.com/files/9813/9143/9097/Cloud-Computing-Maturity-Model.pdf (accessed 21 September 2013).

  • Venkatraman N (1994) IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review 35 (2), 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade M and Hulland J (2004) Review: the resource-based view and information systems research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 107–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh ST, Kirchhoff BA and Newbert S (2002) Differentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (4), 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wamba SF and Chatfield AT (2009) A contigency model for creating value from RFID supply chain network projects in logistics and manufacturing environments. European Journal of Information Systems 18 (6), 615–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ET, Hu H-f and Hu PJ-H (2013) Examining the role of information technology in cultivating firms’ dynamic marketing capabilities. Information & Management 50 (6), 336–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang P (2010) Chasing the hottest IT: effects of information technology fashion on organizations. MIS Quarterly 34 (1), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss A (2007) Computing in the clouds. ACM Networker 11 (4), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5 (2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler BC (2002) NEBIC: a dynamic capabilities theory for assessing net-enablement. Information Systems Research 13 (2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA and George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 27 (2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Q, Cheng L and Boutaba R (2010) Cloud computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges. Journal of Internet Services and Applications 1 (1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Information Systems, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, U.S.A.

    Douglas A Battleson & Balasubramaniam Ramesh

  2. Mason Harriman Group, Washington DC, U.S.A.

    Barry C West

  3. MSIS Department, College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston, U.S.A.

    Jongwoo Kim

  4. Financial Voyages LLC, Atlanta, U.S.A.

    Pamela S Robinson

Authors
  1. Douglas A Battleson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barry C West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jongwoo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Balasubramaniam Ramesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pamela S Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Battleson, D., West, B., Kim, J. et al. Achieving dynamic capabilities with cloud computing: an empirical investigation. Eur J Inf Syst 25, 209–230 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.12

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.12

Keywords

Search

Navigation