Dynamic Capabilities: A Measurement Proposal

and its Relationship with Performance

Ivan Lapuente Garrido1

igarrido@[Link] | 0000-0003-3741-7961

Caroline Kretschmer1
ckretschmer@[Link] | 0000-0002-3318-0947

Silvio Luis de Vasconcellos2

slvasconcellos@[Link] | 0000-0002-9986-679X

Cláudio Reis Gonçalo3

claudioreisgoncalo@[Link] | 0000-0002-1175-1104

ABSTRACT
Despite the relevance and growth of research into Dynamic Capabilities,
certain gaps and criticisms remain. These issues are primarily related to the
measurements of Dynanic Capabilities and its impacts on performance. There
is a lack of empirical research that is attempting to investigate the existence,
development, and orchestration of Dynamic Capabilities to support superior
performance. This paper proposes and validates a scale for the measurement
of Dynamic Capabilities based on Teece’s conceptual dimensions (sense,
seizing and reconfiguring) through a survey presented in a highly dynamic
industry and market, and by investigating the impact on performance.
The results, besides validating the scale, showed Teece´s three conceptual
dimensions exhibited different behavior in relation to each dimension of
performance. Sense and Reconfiguration demonstrated a negative relationship
with organizational performance while Seize is positively associated with
performance. This may help explain some of the fuzzy results of previous 1
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos,
Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil
studies that used proxies to measure Dynamic Capabilities. 2
Universidade Regional de Blumenau,
Blumenau, SC, Brasil
KEYWORDS 3
Universidade do Vale do Itajaí,
Dynamic Capabilities, Information Technology, Performance, Scale Itajaí, SC, Brasil

Received: 12/20/2018.
Revised: 04/11/2019.
Accepted: 05/23/2019.
Published Online: 12/23/2019.
DOI: [Link]

this article is distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution 4.0 international license
1. INTRODUCTION
The Dynamic Capabilities (DCs) perspective is a subject of great interest in the area of strategic 17
management studies (Vogel & Güttel, 2013). Since it was developed during the 1990s, a great
deal of research has been conducted to conceptualize and delineate its underlying elements and 47
assumptions (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). However, there are a number of distinct views on how
DCs should be conceptualized and applied in the area of strategy studies that are disconnected from
each other (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Vogel & Güttel, 2013), causing confusion and possibly
creating obstacles to development in this area (Barreto, 2010). This paper proposes a method of
measurement of DCs and also discusses the role they play in organizational performance (OP).
In the permanent and rapid changes that characterize the competitive business environment,
customers’ needs, technology and the actions of competitors represent new opportunities for
firms, but they are also risks that threaten their survival and growth (Teece, 2007). Responding
to this background, the DCs approach offers a different perspective from which to understand
the sources of competitive advantage, since it proposes a framework for understanding the way
that organizations construct and maintain a competitive advantage in complex and constantly
changing environments (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). From the DCs perspective, a strategy
for obtaining a competitive advantage starts with the adoption of the appropriate business
models and technologies that enable combination and orchestration of assets that are difficult
to replicate (Teece, 2007).
Despite the relevance of the subject, empirical studies investigating DCs remain no more than
incipient (Laaksonen & Peltoniemi, 2018). There is a lack of research attempting to confirm their
existence, to identify the processes by which they are developed, to determine which contingency
factors affect them, and what their effects on an organization might be, such as, for example,
what impact they have on performance (Helfat & Peteraf, 2009; Shamsie, Martin, & Miller,
2009). One factor that may be contributing to these gaps in the literature, and the criticisms
the approach has attracted, is the failure to reach a consensus on methods for measuring DCs.
Applied research has employed a range of proxies to measure them, possibly without effectively
reflecting the concept (Pavlou & Sawy, 2011). Supporting such spread of approaches, Laaksonen
& Peltoniemi (2018) found 232 different operationalizations of DCs in a review of empirical
studies on DCs. Eriksson (2014) points out the need for the development of DCs measurement.
In the direction of contributing to filling these gaps and stemming criticism of the concept,
this study is designed to fulfill two basic objectives. The first objective is to propose a scale for
measurement of DCs that encompasses various different dimensions of the concept (Sense, Seize
and Managing Threats and Reconfiguration) as proposed by Teece (2007). The second objective
is to assess the role played by DCs and their dimensions within the different dimensions of
organizational performance. DCs is a multidimensional concept and its different dimensions
can have different influences on performance.
In order to fulfill these twin objectives, we conducted a study in two distinct phases. In the
first phase, which was exploratory and qualitative, we proposed a scale based on the dimensions
of DCs defined by Teece (2007): “Sense new opportunities and threats”(Sense); “Seize new
opportunities” (Seize); and “Managing threats and reconfiguration”(MTR). In addition to these,
we integrated additional indicators from other studies (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Zahra &
George, 2002; Zollo & Winter, 2002) dealing with the same subject.
The second stage was descriptive and quantitative, consisting of testing the scale by conducting
a survey of managers working in the Brazilian Information Technology (IT) industry. This industry
and market are suited to this line of research because both the industry and the market (country)
 are highly dynamic, with a rapid rate and high volume of change andspeed of introduction of
17 innovations, as well as being knowledge-intense and highly competitive (Teece et al., 1997).
The results provide evidence showing that the proposed multidimensional scale has an adequate
fit and that DCs have a positive influence on OP while revealing the different behavior of each
48 dimension (Sense, Seize, and MTR) in relation to DCs and to the performance itself.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The first formal definition of DCs was presented in a seminal article by Teece et al. (1997), which
opened the way to a fertile and diverse field of research within the area of strategic management
studies (Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2010). Teece et al. (1997) conceptualized DCs as “the
firm’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competences to address
rapidly changing environments” (p. 516). This concept is concerned with proactive methods of
finding different and innovative paths to achieving competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997).
DCs are capabilities which are capable of purposefully creating, amplifying, and modifying their
resource bases (Teece, 2019; Teece et al., 1997). The scope of DCs permeates a firm’s ability to not
only mold the ecosystem in which it does business, but also to develop new products, processes,
and business models, while enabling the organization to adapt to technological opportunities and
changes in customers’ demands (Teece, 2014; Teece, 2007). However, the construct of DCs is
permeated by a variety of interpretations and conceptualizations and its concepts and underlying
elements change from researcher to research (Di Stefano et al., 2010).
Notwithstanding, the different definitions of DCs do converge in terms of identifying them
as organizational processes that enable firms to change their resource bases. These capabilities
are constructed, they are dependent on the organization’s path, and they are incorporated into
the firm (Helfat et al., 2007). These processes are integrated and rooted in the firm, they are not
easily codifiable or transferable, but they enable firms to implement resources in conjunction,
combining explicit activities and tacit elements (such as know-how and leadership), and are
developed over time as a result of complex interactions between a firm’s resources (Wang &
Ahmed, 2007). According to Teece et al. (1997), the competitive advantage depends on the firm’s
managerial processes (the way things are done), their asset position (current assets, intellectual
property, complementary assets, customer base, and external relations), and their paths (possible
strategic alternatives, returns and path dependence).
DCs are made up of a combination of company history, values, and routines, as well as the
skills of top management, enabling a firm to invest in new products, processes, and business
models at the appropriate time and with reference to assessments of the technological and business
environment (Teece, 2014).
Given the scope and complexity of the subject, different studies have focused on specific
elements of DCs. Zollo and Winter (2002) consider that one prerequisite for DCs is stability
in the organizational activities that develop improvements and modifications to operational
routines to improve their effectiveness. Learning mechanisms and the firm’s ability to combine
and recombine assets to produce improvements are characteristic of DCs. Zahra and George
(2002) link DCs with the firm’s absorptive capacity, which enables it to generate and introduce
the knowledge needed to create other organizational capabilities, via organizational routines and
strategic processes. In the view of Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) DCs are organizational and
strategic routines that make possible new resource configurations in changing markets. They see
DCs as a firm’s best practices that it has adopted in advance of its competitors. They list routines
for knowledge transference and recombination, routines for product development and quality
control, and research and development (R&D) teams as important elements for supporting DCs.
Finally, Teece (2007) broke down DCs into three capabilities or dimensions: (1) Sense and shape 17
opportunities and threats (Sense) (2) Seize opportunities (Seize), and (3) Managing threats and
reconfiguration (MTR). He also proposed a series of indicators, or microfoundations originating
in the literature on strategy, innovation and organization (Teece, 2007). 49
The figure below (Chart 1) illustrates the results of the integration of these different perspectives.
It is based on the foundation proposed by Teece (2007) since this is the most comprehensive and
instructive proposal, and then elements from other studies were integrated into this proposal.
The resulting integration is the basis of the scale used in this study.

Chart 1
Dimensions of DCs and their Microfoundations
Capabilities and Microfoundations
Sense: search for and explore opportunities in technologies and markets
• Constant investment in R&D; identify customer needs; collect information
from different sources and filter it; monitor the activities of competitors,
Teece (2007)
customers, and suppliers; monitor the structural evolution of the business;
monitor internal and external technological development.
• Accumulate tacit knowledge through experience and acts of creativity. Zollo and Winter, (2002)
• Acquire knowledge and develop mechanisms to receive knowledge transfers. Zahra and George (2002)
• Develop routines for knowledge creation in which management and workers Eisenhardt and Martin
build “new thinking” within the firm. (2000)
Seize: transformation of these opportunities into new products, services, and processes
• Develop new products, processes, and services; focus on management and on
functional activities; invest in technology and design to reach a target market;
create, adapt, improve and, if necessary, substitute business models; acquire Teece (2007)
technologies externally and develop them internally; perfect absorptive capacity
through learning activities and accumulation of skills.
• Articulate knowledge Zollo and Winter, (2002)
• Routines for assimilation and internalization of knowledge; taking strategic
Zahra and George (2002)
decisions.
MTR: reconfiguration and recombination of assets and organizational structure to ensure the evolution of the firm
• Define partnerships in the value chain; decentralize activities and decisions;
flexibility; orchestrate assets, align them, realign them and redistribute them;
Teece (2007)
capability to integrate external knowledge and assets; capability to share
knowledge; monitor, and protect technology transfer and intellectual property.
• Develop processes for knowledge codification to disseminate it and to generate
Zollo and Winter, (2002)
new proposals for altering the firm’s routines.
• Exploit the new knowledge created. Zahra and George (2002)
• Reconnect networks of collaborations of the firm to generate new
Eisenhardt and Martin
combinations of resources; abandon resource combinations that no longer
(2000)
provide a competitive advantage.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
 2.1. Different measurements
17 One of the most obvious sources of complexity in empirical articles on DCs is the conceptual
breadth adopted, and the methods of measuring them. Some studies assess DCs by evaluating
50 the development of new products and markets (Schilke, 2014; Shamsie et al., 2009), others
seek evidence of innovation and technology or even of R&D investment (Danneels, 2012; Efrat,
Hughes, Nemkova, Souchon, & Sy-Changco, 2018); marketing capabilities (Pedron, Picoto,
Colaco, & Araújo, 2014); alliance and partnership formation and acquisitions have also been
used (Castro & Roldán, 2015; Schilke, 2014); as have learning capability (Lin & Wu, 2014);
and strategic flexibility (Efrat et al., 2018), among other indicators.
However, when compared to the parameter provided by Teece’s proposal (2007), it is found
that the concepts and methods of measurement listed are somehow incomplete. In some cases,
they encompass part of the concept of DCs but do not include all of its dimensions. In our
analysis, only in Wilden, Gudergan, Nielsen, & Lings (2013), Takahashi, Bulgacov, Semprebon
e Giacomini (2017), and Wilden e Gudergan (2017), the three dimensions proposed by Teece
(2007) are present, despite the indicators in each construct did not integrate Teece´s concept
completely. For example, the authors did not ask about the capacity to build a business model
in the Seize construct or about the practices to identify new technologies in the Sense construct.

2.2. DCs and OP

There is some criticism about the relationship between DCs and superior performance once a
positive relationship was not found in all empirical studies analyzed (Pezeshkan, Fainshmidt, Nair,
Lance Frazier, & Markowski, 2016). A possibility is that there is not a direct relationship between
DC and performance. In this sense, to Teece (2014) DCs and business strategies codetermine
performance. Also to Ambrosini & Bowman (2009) the firm’s resources, the operational routines,
and competencies, can affect the relationship between CDs and performance. In line with this,
Laaksonen & Peltoniemi (2018) propose that DCs are dependent on the companies’ ordinary
capabilities, modified by DCs and by the evolutionary fitness of these capabilities.
Despite such controversial positions, the literature suggests a positive relationship between
DCs and performance. DCs make it possible for organizations to identify and implement the
best way to construct and maintain their competitive advantage in complex and constantly
changing environments (Kay, Leih, & Teece, 2018; Teece et al., 1997). The DCs perspective is
closely related to OP since possession and orchestration of these capabilities alter a firm’s base of
competencies, operational routines, and resources, which can change its market position and,
consequently, its performance (Zott, 2003).
It is by arranging their resources that the organizations that possess them develop capabilities
and arrive at systematic models for their organizational activities, which allow them to generate
and adapt their routines to achieve greater efficiency (Zollo & Winter, 2002). As a response to
OP, DCs enable improved response capability for dealing with environmental changes, offering
opportunities to increase revenue and adjust operations to reduce costs (Drnevich & Kriauciunas,
2011; Kay, Leih, & Teece, 2018).

2.3. The measurement model

Figure 1 illustrates the model on which the proposal described in this paper is based. It is
founded on the understanding that DCs reveal their existence in the form of the capacity to
generate better OP in constantly changing environments.

Dynamic Capabilities
  H1 17

51
Sense and shape
oportunities H2

Seize H3 Organizational
oportunities Performance

H4
Managing threats
and reconfiguration

Figure 1. Research framework.

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The underlying foundation of the model is the relationship between DCs and OP. Many
studies have proposed and confirmed this relationship, such as, for example, Schilke (2014),
Teece (2007), and Wang and Ahmed (2007), among others. However, the model presented in
this paper is different from previous empirical studies and is a positive evolution in relation to
them because of two central elements. The first of these elements is the scale designed specifically
to measure DCs, created using the basic framework defined by Teece (2007) and supplemented
with aspects from other studies, but without relying on proxies to capture DCs, as is usually
proposed. This offers a more comprehensive and complete measurement and could contribute a
basis for conducting studies that can be compared with each other. The second of these elements
is that the proposal acknowledges the full complexity of the concept of DCs and breaks down
measurement of it into its distinct dimensions of “Sense”, “Seize”, and “MTR” (Teece, 2007).
This element is important, because each of these capabilities has different concepts and functions
and, and, even though they are all components of DCs, they may have different relationships
with OP or have different roles to play in achieving it. Investigating their behavior, both in
relation to DCs and in relation to organizational performance, should contribute to advancing
research into the subject.
Working from these arguments, and within the research framework shown above, we raise
the following hypotheses:

• H1: There is a positive and significant relationship between DCs and OP;
• H2: There is a positive and significant relationship between Sense and OP;
• H3: There is a positive and significant relationship between Seize and OP;
• H4: There is a positive and significant relationship between MTR and OP.
 3. METHODS
17 We conducted this study in two phases. The first phase was qualitative and exploratory and
consisted of the construction of the proposed scale to measure DCs and a model to guide the
52 empirical component of the study. The second phase was descriptive and quantitative and consisted
of testing the proposed scale and model using cross-sectional data from the Brazilian IT industry.

3.1. Empirical context

We chose the Brazilian IT industry (software, hardware and telecommunications companies)
because it is a turbulent environment, both in terms of the industry and in terms of the market
(the political and economic crisis in Brazil (2015-2017) represented a sui generis opportunity
to evaluate how firms immersed in a turbulent scenario developed DCs). This combination is
a setting in which there is a great deal of change, a high rate of introduction of innovations,
high knowledge intensity, and a high degree of competitiveness, making it very appropriate for
investigating the role of DCs.

3.2. Qualitative Phase

Starting from the Teece’s model (2007) and drawing on the other articles that made up the
synthesis of theoretical references illustrated in Figure 1 (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Zahra &
George, 2002; Zollo & Winter, 2002) we constructed a scale that comprised indicators for each
of the dimensions, Sense, Seize, and MTR. This scale was discussed with seven entrepreneurs
from the IT industry in October and November 2015. These entrepreneurs were chosen on the
basis of recommendations made by Assespro (the Brazilian association of IT companies) and the
most important criteria were their breadth of experience in the IT industry and their status as
top-level managers in their respective firms. This phaseing was important to fit the wording of
the indicators to a managerial language. We asked each respondent to answer the questionnaire
and after that, we discussed each question.

3.3. Quantitative Phase

We collected the data from between December 2015 to March 2016 by means of a survey. The
firms surveyed were selected from lists of the members of industry associations. The questionnaire
was administered by telephone. The respondents were executives with responsibility for firm
strategy. We conducted a pre-test with 34 firms to test the quality of the questionnaire. This
resulted in a small number of changes to arrive at the final questionnaire. The most significant
change was to set revenue bands for classifying firms by size that were more appropriate to the
industry. The questionnaire was administered in Portuguese. A version in English is shown later
in Table 6.
The questionnaire was administered to representatives from a sample of 99 firms. Just one
firm was eliminated from the final sample because the questionnaire sent to them was returned a
high number of unanswered questions. The final result was a sample of 98 firms for analysis. The
characteristics of the firms that took part reflect the immense diversity of the Brazilian IT industry;
78% of them are software developers, 16% produce hardware and 5% are telecommunications
firms. The mean number of employees per firm was 243, but one firm has 10,000 employees,
while the smallest only has one. The great majority of these firms (80%) have revenues ofless
than 10 million reais per year (about 3 million American dollars).
3.4. Measures
17
3.4.1. Independent Variables (IVs)
The IVs are the three dimensions of DCs proposed by Teece (2007): Sense (SE), Seize (SZ) 53
and Managing Threats and Reconfiguration (MTR). For each dimension, there are a series of
statements and the respondent is requested to indicate the extent to which they agree with each
one on a 5-point scale.
3.4.2. Dependent Variable (DV)
Ultimately, the DV is organizational performance, but we adopted several different dimensions
of performance – financial performance (FP), strategic performance (SP), satisfaction with
performance (SaP), and innovation (IN).
The measures for FP, SP, and SaP were based on the EXPERF scale created by Zou, Taylor, and
Osland (1998), in which each construct is comprised of three indicators and the focus is on the
previous three years. Additionally, using an observable variable, the last DV is the respondent’s
perception of the firm’s degree of innovation in relation to its competitors. For all of these
indicators, responses are given on a 5-point scale of agreement.
In this study, we have employed subjective data, capturing the respondents’ perceptions of each
indicator assessed. We chose this method because we are studying a complex and heterogeneous
industry with a high degree of informality and one in an emerging market where data collection
is difficult, particularly so with respect to secondary data.
3.4.3. Control Variables (CV)
We chose firm experience (age of firm – AG) and size (number of employees – EM and
revenue – RV) as control variables. More experience implies more learning and commitment to
the market and larger firm size is related to greater access to resources and potential to develop
capabilities (Musteen, Francis, & Datta, 2010).

3.5. Validation of measures and analytical procedures

We assessed each construct separately using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), calculating
composite reliability (CR), variance extracted (VE), Cronbach’s alpha (CA), and factor loadings
(FL) for each indicator against the construct. We also tested the discriminant validity of the
constructs. Finally, we used the AMOS 16 to proceed with the Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) to test the DCs model’s fit. We used the linear regression analysis from IBM SPSS statistics
20 to test the relationship between the IVs and the DV. We decided not to use SEM because of
the sample size (Kline, 1998).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. The Dynamic Capabilities Scale

Because of the exploratory nature of this phase, the first version of the proposed scale was
very long, comprising more than 50 indicators since the intention was to capture the essence of
each dimension of DCs (Sense, Seize and MTR) and the initial expectation was that several of
them might not adhere to the construct. First, each construct was evaluated separately using the
norms for CFA, and, finally, the model’s fit was evaluated using SEM.
 From the quantitative point of view, the dimension SE initially comprised 11 indicators and
17 after confirmatory factor analysis the final construct had 5; SZ started with 19 indicators and
ended with 8 and, finally, MTR originally had 12, while the final version comprised 8 indicators.
Table 1 lists data for the reliability of the constructs.
54
Table 1
Reliability of DCs Dimensions
SE SZ MTR
Indicators FL Indicators FL Indicators FL
SE3 0.924 SZ15 0.606 MTR34 0.674
SE4 0.689 SZ16 0.840 MTR35 0.639
SE5 0.535 SZ17 0.853 MTR36 0.825
SE6 0.619 SZ18 0.802 MTR37 0.837
SE11 0.598 SZ19 0.912 MTR38 0.887
SZ20 0.867 MTR39 0.856
SZ21 0.895 MTR40 0.774
SZ22 0.606 MTR41 0.439
CR 0.810 CR 0.936 CR 0.911
VE 0.471 VE 0.649 VE 0.569
CA 0.807 CA 0.935 CA 0.907
Note. FL – Factor Loading; CR – Composite Reliability; VE –Variance Extracted; CA – Cronbach’s Alpha.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The data indicates that the constructs offer good reliability. Only VE for SE was slightly below
the 0.5 recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010), but this did not have an
impact on the discriminant validity, as can be observed in Table 2.
The analysis of discriminant validity tests whether the constructs measure different aspects of
DCs. Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend that each construct’s VE should be greater than
the variance shared by constructs (the correlation squared). Table 2 lists comparisons between
the VE for each construct (central diagonal) and the shared variances.
Table 2
Discriminant Validity of DCs Dimensions
SE SZ MTR
SE 0.471
SZ 0.350 0.649
MTR 0.334 0.268 0.569
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

As can be observed, in all cases, that VE is greater than a shared variance, demonstrating the
constructs’ discriminant validity.
Finally, the different dimensions were all assessed in the same model to verify their fit using
SEM. We chose verisimilitude as the method of estimation and the data entry matrix was the
covariance matrix. Figure 2 illustrates the model estimated and the loadings for each dimension.

  Sense and shape 17
oportunities
0.878
55

Dynamic 0.701 Seize

Capabilities (DC) oportunities

0.655
Managing threats
and reconfiguration

Figure 2. Model of DCs.

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Table 3 lists indicators of the model’s fit.

Table 3
Indices of Fit (CFA)
X2/DF p GFI NFI TLI CFI RMSEA
1.57 0.00 0.799 0.832 0.917 0.930 0.077
Note. GFI – Goodness of Fit Index; NFI – Normed Fit Index; TLI – Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI – Comparative Fit
Index; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

The statistical results confirm the model’s fit and reliability and the importance of each dimension
to the formation of DCs. The same statistical procedures were applied to the constructs relating
to the dependent variable. Table 4 lists the results for indicators of the reliability of performance
constructs and Table 5 lists the results of the discriminant validity analysis for the constructs.
Table 4
Reliability of Performance Constructs
Financial Performance Strategic Performance Satisfaction with Performance
Ind FL Ind FL Ind FL
FP43 0.910 SP46 0.830 SaP80 0.979
FP44 0.874 SP47 0.919 SaP81 0.948
FP45 0.866 SP48 0.847 SaP82 0.828

CR 0.914 CR 0.899 CR 0.943

VE 0.780 VE 0.750 VE 0.847
CA 0.913 CA 0.895 CA 0.939
Note. FL – Factor Loading; Ind – Indicators; CR – Composite Reliability; VE – Variance Extracted; CA – Cronbach’s
Alpha
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
 Table 5
Discriminant Validity of Performance Constructs
17
FP SP SaP
FP 0.781
56 SP 0.353 0.750
SaP 0.573 0.415 0.848
Note. FP – Financial Performance; SP – Strategic Performance; SaP – Satisfaction with Performance
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

All of the results observed confirmed the adequate degree of reliability.

Table 6 lists the complete questionnaire applied.
Since the results demonstrated that the constructs had adequate reliability, we proceeded to test
the research hypotheses using linear regression. For this analysis, observable variables were created
to represent each construct, established by their means. The following variables were created: SE
(Sense), SZ (Seize), MTR (Managing threats and reconfiguration), FP (financial performance),
SP (strategic performance) and SaP (satisfaction with performance). The variable IN (innovation)
was already an observable variable. Additionally, a variable DCs (Dynamic Capabilities) was
created by calculating the mean of all of the dimension variables SE, SZ, and MTR.
We constructed two regression blocks for the tests of hypotheses. The first block contains
models I to IV and includes the relationships between the variable DCs and the dimensions of
performance. The second block is made up of model V to model VIII, which test the relationships
between the three different dimensions of DCs (SE, SZ, and MTR) and the dimensions of
performance. We included Employees (EM), Revenue (RV) to control the influence of firm size
and age (AG) to control the influence of experience in all models.
Table 7 lists the results of models I through IV and Table 8 lists the results of model V through
model VIII.
Fulfillment of the assumptions inherent to the method was checked after the regressions
have been performed. Correlations between dependent and independent variables were tested
using bivariate correlations with Pearson’s correlation coefficients, the results showed significant
correlations between 0.518 and 0.592. Homoscedasticity of residuals was verified using the Breusch-
Pagan and White tests. Independence of residuals was verified using the Durbin Watson test.
Additionally, since we collected data from a single respondent at each firm (meaning the data on
independent and dependent variables came from the same source), we used Harman’s one-factor
test to assess the common-method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The
one-factor test revealed a covariance among the variables of less than 50% indicating that there
are no serious problems with common-method variance. We also verified the correlation between
the subjective performances with objective performance data for a subsample of 45 companies,
according to Table 9. There is a positive correlation between subjective and objective performance
allowing the inference that the perception of respondents has a relationship to the results.
Table 6
The Research Scale

17
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the statements below using the following scale:
Completely Disagree = 1 Agree Completely = 5
SENSE 57
Our firm is constantly investing in research and development activities to identify new
SE01 ns
technologies and market opportunities.
Our firm is constantly seeking and exploring new technologies and markets both in the
SE02 ns
business we are currently in and in other businesses or sectors.
SE03 Our firm monitors the structural evolution of our business/sector. 0.924
Our firm monitors and understands the current and latent (future) demands of the market,
SE04 0.689
suppliers, and competitors.
Our firm’s owners and management know how to interpret the business environment, what
SE05 0.535
technology they should chase and on which markets they should focus.
Our firm is constantly seeking information from different sources, such as news,
SE06 relationships, formal and informal contacts with customers, competitors and suppliers, 0.619
fairs, universities, etc.
SE07 Our firm explores and monitors the development of new technologies internally. ns
Our firm is constantly investing and makes proactive efforts to ensure that the information
SE08 collected flows between those people who are able to use it to identify new technological ns
and market opportunities.
Our firm adopts planned and organized formal processes for collection, analysis, and use of
SE09 ns
information on new technologies and markets.
SE10 Our firm values the constant search for innovations originating outside of the firm. ns
Our firm clearly allocates resources for activities such as searching and analyzing
SE11 0.598
information and discovering new opportunities in technologies and markets.
SEIZE
Our firm is constantly developing new products, services or processes to take advantage of
SZ12 ns
new technological and market opportunities.
SZ13 Our firm tends to deal very well with market change and uncertainty. ns
Our firm takes very good advantage of the opportunities we identify and that we judge to
SZ14 ns
be good for our business.
Our firm has a great capacity to create, adjust and, when necessary, redesign our business
SZ15 0.606
plan.
SZ16 Our business plan makes it clear what our value proposal is and how it is articulated. 0.840
SZ17 Our business plan estimates costs and potential revenues to meet customers’ needs. 0.853
Our business plan identifies which technologies are appropriate to our business and how
SZ18 0.802
they will be obtained.
Our business plan defines the structure of our value chain and where we are positioned
SZ19 0.912
within it.
SZ20 Our business plan identifies and segments our target markets. 0.867
SZ21 Our business plan makes it clear how we do business in our market. 0.895
SZ22 Our firm always analyzes multiple alternatives before taking decisions. 0.606
SZ23 Our firm has a profound knowledge of our customers’ needs. ns
Our firm has a profound knowledge of the value chain through which we reach our
SZ24 ns
customers.
At our firm, we constantly need products (platforms) or services developed by third parties
SZ25 ns
in order to complement our own products or services.
 Table 6
Cont.
17
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the statements below using the following scale:
Completely Disagree = 1 Agree Completely = 5
58 SZ26
Our firm adopts mechanisms to prevent errors and biases in relation to the information
ns
analyzed and the decisions are taken.
We seek external analyses or opinions on our information and decisions in order to avoid
SZ27 ns
errors and biases.
SZ28 We effectively use the information we have as a basis for our decisions. ns
We tend to request the opinions of people external to our firm as part of analyzing our
SZ29 ns
decisions.
SZ30 The rewards and remuneration system at our firm encourages innovation and creativity. ns
MTR
We know how to configure and reconfigure our resources and our organizational structure
MTR31 ns
to adjust to changes and to the growth of our business.
MTR32 Our firm is flexible. ns
MTR33 Our firm has some type of board or forum for integration. ns
At our firm, we are able to identify externally in other firms or organizations assets that are
MTR34 0.674
complementary (specialized or cospecialized) to our requirements.
In our firm, we have the ability to integrate and develop the assets identified externally that
MTR35 0.639
are complementary (specialized or cospecialized).
MTR36 We constantly identify opportunities for partnerships with external organizations. 0.825
MTR37 We find it easy to implement and manage partnerships with external organizations. 0.837
We find it easy to integrate into our business the benefits gained from external
MTR38 0.887
partnerships.
The benefits we gain through partnerships with other firms constantly generate value for
MTR39 0.856
our customers.
MTR40 Our firm has a strong ability to integrate knowledge and know-how with external partners. 0.774
Our firm manages and monitors ways of protecting our secrets and our intellectual
MTR41 0.439
property.
We adopt procedures to avoid transferring technology and intellectual property to our
MTR42 ns
partners.
Performance
FP43 Has been very profitable in the last 3 years. 0.910
FP44 Has generated a high volume of sales in the last 3 years. 0.874
FP45 Has achieved rapid growth in the last 3 years. 0.866
SP46 Has improved its competitiveness in the last 3 years. 0.830
SP47 Has strengthened its strategic positioning in the last 3 years. 0.919
SP48 Has significantly increased its market share in the last 3 years. 0.847
SaP49 Our performance in the domestic market has been very satisfactory over the last 3 years. 0.882
SaP50 Our business in the domestic market has been very satisfactory over the last 3 years. 0.715
SaP51 Our business in the domestic market has fully met our expectations over the last 3 years. 0.879
IN
Our products and services are more innovative than the products and services of our
IN52
competitors on the domestic market.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Table 7
Regression Models for DCs and Performance

17
Model I II III IV
IV FP SP SaP IN
DV DCs 59
CV AG, RV, EM
F 3.120 3.604 4.431 5.081
significance 0.021 0.011 0.003 0.001
adjusted r 2
0.117 0.140 0.177 0.203
Beta DCs 0.121 0.331** 0.280** 0.425**
Beta AG -0.225* -0.142 -0.192 0.157
Beta RV 0.300** 0.092 0.217 -0.099
Beta EM 0.131 0.154 0.161 0.213*
Note. ** significant at 0.05 * significant at 0.10
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Table 8
Regression Models for Dimensions of DCs and of Performance
Model V VI VII VIII
IV FP SP SaP IN
DV SE, SZ, MTR
CV AG, RV, EM
F 3.503 3.807 4.220 3.398
significance 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.006
adjusted r 2
0.190 0.208 0.232 0.184
Beta SE -0.293* -0.244* -0.272* 0.108
Beta SZ 0.377** 0.465** 0.380** 0.121
Beta MTR -0.011 0.100 0.150 0.278*
Beta AG - 0.257** -0.172 -0.215* 0.167
Beta RV 0.389** 0.180 0.309** -0.100
Beta EM 0.129 0.154 0.166 0.220*
Note. ** significant at 0.05 * significant at 0.10
Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Table 9
Correlation between Subjective and Objective Performance
ΔS ΔC ROS
FP 0,366** 0,455** 0,329**
SP 0,328** 0,419** 0,392**
SaP 0,403** 0,413** 0,283**
Note. ** significant at 0.05; ΔS sales growth; ΔC growth in the number of clients; ROS return on sales
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
 4.2. Discussion
17
4.2.1. DCs and Performance

60 On the one hand, the results listed in Table 7 confirmed what some previous research in the
area has indicated (Drnevich & Kriauciunas, 2011; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Zott, 2003). There is
a direct and significant relationship between DCs with organizational performance. The findings
show the relationship between DCs with SP, SaP, and IN. These results supported Hypothesis 1.
But, on the other hand, we did not find support to the relationship with Financial Performance,
confirming other study findings – there is no relationship between DC and financial performance
(Pezeshkan et al., 2016).
In fact, the results hold the controversy found in previous studies. Nevertheless, since the
literature has shown that possession and orchestration of DCs have an influence on a firm’s
capabilities, routines, and resources, and that such relationship affects the position in the market
and, consequently, its performance (Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Zott, 2003). Possibly it is more the
result of a methodological problem than a theoretical controversy. As discussed in the theoretical
background, many of the researches used proxies or did a one-dimensional evaluation of DCs.
We agree DCs is a multidimensional concept (Barreto, 2010; Teece, 2007) and its different
dimensions can have different influences on performance. In Table 2 we can see the discriminant
validity between the dimensions of DCs, but we also can see a positive correlation between
them. It means they are measuring different aspects of DCs, but these aspects have a positive
correlation between them.
From this point, we have checked the influence of each DC’s dimension on performance. A
general overview of the results in Table 8 shows that the dimensions SE, SZ, and MTR have
different results from each other and they also exhibit distinct influence on performance, depending
on the different methods used to measure performance.
4.2.2. Sense
Hypothesis 2 proposed the existence of a direct and significant relationship between SE and
performance, but, in contrast with what was expected, the relationship was negative for some
measures of performance (FP, SP, and SaP). The very nature of the dimension SE implies expending
efforts on research, information mapping, and market monitoring, which require allocations of
resources that do not show returns in an immediate analysis; on the contrary, these are activities
that demand investments. This could explain the negative relationship with performance.
In fact, the dimension Sense could be considered as a prerequisite or an antecedent of the
other dimensions, not the least because of the importance demonstrated by the strength of its
relationship with the other dimensions (SZ and MTR) and with the DCs construct. In this sense,
the results may help to explain some results that did not find a positive relationship between DCs
with performance. If any of these studies used indicators associated with the sense dimensions,
the results can present somehow a bias. The results, however, also have demonstrated a positive
relationship between sense, with the innovation of products and processes, even if this relationship
has no statistical significance.
4.2.3. Seize
Seize represents the effectiveness of taking advantage of opportunities that have been identified. It
signifies the transformation of ideas into new products, services, and processes which, through the
application of strategies and well-constructed business plans, will have an impact on organizational
performance. 17
The strategy for achieving competitive advantages is based on the adoption of technologies
and appropriate business models that enable the combination and orchestration of difficult-to-
imitate assets (Teece, 2007). This is confirmed by the positive relationships between SZ and FP, 61
SP, and SaP. These results support Hypothesis 3.
4.2.4. MTR
The MTR only had a direct and significant relationship with IN. The nature of the indicators
that comprise this dimension is related to the management of partnerships with a focus on
developing resources and capabilities and on the protection of assets. These indicators, by their
very nature, are more related to innovation performance.
In common with SE, MTR exhibited a different relationship from that proposed at the start
of the study, but it nevertheless plays an important role both in relation to the other dimensions
(SE, SZ) and with relation to the DCs construct. Its role in relation to the other dimensions
may be played out in an indirect manner, possibly via other capabilities, or possibly, only acting
as an element of protection for capabilities or innovations.
Teece (2007) points out that reconfiguration is one way for a firm to escape from the unfavorable
aspects of path dependence. It is, therefore, valid to suggest that, taking the absence of a direct
relationship between MTR, and the dimensions of performance together with the results showing
a negative relationship between experience and performance, the firms surveyed may be locked
into the negative aspects of their paths, preventing them from acting in partnership or protecting
their assets. This may be an element that is related to the industry investigated, rather than the
nature of the capabilities. In view of the above, Hypothesis 4 is partially supported by the study
results.
4.2.5. Size and Experience
Another important aspect of the results is related to the control variables. Firm size had a
positive influence on several dimensions of performance, both when assessed in terms of revenue
and when assessed in terms of a number of employees. This is probably because larger firms have
greater access to resources and greater capacity, including financial capacity, to make investments
(Musteen et al., 2010).
Experience had a negative relationship with many dimensions of performance. This may be
because firms that have been established for longer are already mature in some markets and
so have greater path dependence – possibly in terms of product and services lines, in terms of
customers or in terms of the strategic options adopted. For this reason, change is more expensive
and riskier and they find it more difficult to innovate; very often such firms have structures that
have solidified and become set. As mentioned earlier, this could be a factor related to the nature of
the industry studied and, for this reason, it merits investigation in greater depth in future research.

5. CONCLUSIONS
The most important contribution of this study has been the proposed scale for measurement of
DCs. We argue that this scale is a positive evolution in relation to previous studies of the subject,
the majority of which have used proxies to measure DCs. Many of these approximations adopt
measures that may indeed cover certain elements of DCs, but they remain partial. Some have
 used data on new products and markets, innovation and technology, investments in R&D, and/
17 or management of relationships, among others. The issue of measurement of DCs constitutes
one of the most important gaps in the area and is the target of a large proportion of the criticism
that has been directed at the approach. The scale allows us to reflect the integrality of the concept
62 and presents an objective form of measurement for the DCs, as requested by Pavlou and Sawy
(2011) and Eriksson (2014).
The scale proposed in this study has different characteristics. It is based on the most important
concepts of DCs, it employs the three different dimensions that comprise DCs and results, both
statistical and for content validity, indicate that the proposal offers good fit and reliability. A
scale of this nature should contribute to expanding knowledge in the area, both by making it
possible to conduct studies that can be compared with each other, because they adopt similar
methodological procedures, and because it enables more robust analysis of the elements that
comprise the concept. Thus, this proposal can increase the congruence in the interpretations of
the role of DCs and improve the problems of divergences in DCs searches highlighted by Di
Stefano et al. (2010).
Additionally, the results of the survey also make a series of contributions to the subject area and
could influence the agenda for future research. In terms of academic contributions, in addition
to proposing and testing the scale, this study also adds to knowledge about the roles played by
the different capabilities or dimensions that comprise DCs.
The role played by the dimension Sense indicates that this is a stage or phase of investment
that has a negative impact on performance, possibly because it implies effort and expenditure
with no perceptible return. However, its relationships with the other dimensions and, with the
DCs construct, provide evidence of its importance for performance over the long term. These
results corroborate the idea that DCs allow a company to address environmental changes, adjust
and reconfigure its resources to increase revenues and reduce costs (Kay, Leih, & Teece, 2018;
Teece, 2014).
The dimension Seize characterizes the importance of business plans and strategies that enable
firms to take advantage of the opportunities identified. It indicates the importance of strategic
capability for achieving results. It is also the dimension with the strongest direct relationship
with the performance measures.
The MTR dimension only had a direct significant relationship with innovation and so invites
further study aimed at improving understanding. It is possible that its role is to protect a firm’s
assets and contribute to its performance via innovation and relationship management. This
result may also be influenced by features of the industry studied –firms in this industry may be
locked into unfavorable aspects of their paths. These are obviously avenues for future research.
It should, however, be stressed that the tests of fit applied to the scale demonstrate that all three
dimensions are important for the measurement of DCs, showing that, working from this central
contribution, the role of the dimensions should be studied in greater depth in future research.
For the executive setting, these results demonstrate with greater clarity the elements that
comprise organizations’ DCs and their impacts on the different dimensions of performance.
This offers scope for firms to deliberately improve management of these dimensions. As is true
of all scientific research, this study has certain limitations. The research was conducted in just
one industry and so there is no way to control for the effects of industry on the results; the IT
sector is services-intensive and services have very different characteristics from the traditional
manufacturing industry; the sample of 98 respondents is too small to conduct more robust tests
(such as structural equations modeling) to test the relationship with performance variables in
a single model, which is the reason why SEM was only used in a partial manner in the study. 17
These contributions open up avenues for future research, for example, to verify the influences
of the industry in the proposed relationships; the differences between services and manufacturing
industries in terms of the relationships between DCs and their dimensions and organizational 63
performance, and; the influences of organization’s “path dependence” in the development of DCs.

REFERENCES
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful
construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29-
49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00251.x
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future.
Journal of Management, 36(1), 256-280. doi:10.1177/0149206309350776
Castro, I., & Roldán, J. L. (2015). Alliance portfolio management: dimensions and
performance. European Management Review, 12(2), 63-81. doi:10.1111/emre.12042
Danneels, E. (2012). Second‐order competences and Schumpeterian rents. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 6(1), 42-58. doi:10.1002/sej.1127
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A
bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research
domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187-1204. doi:10.1093/icc/dtq027
Drnevich, P. L., & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the
contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 32(3), 254-279. doi:10.1002/smj.882
Efrat, K., Hughes, P., Nemkova, E., Souchon, A. L., & Sy-Changco, J. (2018). Leveraging
of Dynamic export capabilities for competitive advantage and performance consequences:
Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 84, 114-124.
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management
Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-
SMJ133>[Link];2-E
Eriksson, T. (2014). Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 30(1), 65-82. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.001
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
doi:10.1177/002224378101800313
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. G.
(2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. United Kingdom:
Blackwell Publishing.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a
developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91-102. doi:10.1177/1476127008100133
Kay, N. M., Leih, S., & Teece, D. J. (2018). The role of emergence in dynamic capabilities: A
restatement of the framework and some possibilities for future research. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 27(4), 623-638. doi:10.1093/icc/dty015
 Kline, R. B. (1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling:
17 Amos, EQS, and LISREL.  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,  16(4), 343-364.
doi:10.1177/073428299801600407
Laaksonen, O., & Peltoniemi, M. (2018). The essence of dynamic capabilities and their
64 measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 184-205. doi:10.1111/
ijmr.12122
Lin, Y., & Wu, L. Y. (2014). Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance
under the resource-based view framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 407-413.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.12.019
Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Datta, D. K. (2010). The influence of international networks on
internationalization speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs. Journal of World Business,
45(3), 197-205. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.12.003
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic
capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 239-273. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x
Pedron, C. D., Picoto, W. N., Colaco, M., & Araújo, C. C. (2018). CRM System: The role of
dynamic capabilities in creating innovation capability. BBR. Brazilian Business Review, 15(5),
494-511. doi:10.15728/bbr.2018.15.5.6 
Pezeshkan, A., Fainshmidt, S., Nair, A., Lance Frazier, M., & Markowski, E. (2016). An empirical
assessment of the dynamic capabilities-performance relationship. Journal of Business Research,
69(8), 2950-2956. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.10.152
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage:
The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal,
35(2), 179-203. doi:10.1002/smj.2099
Shamsie, J., Martin, X., & Miller, D. (2009). In with the old, in with the new: Capabilities,
strategies, and performance among the Hollywood studios. Strategic Management Journal,
30(13), 1440-1452. doi:10.1002/smj.789
Takahashi, A. R. W., Bulgacov, S., Semprebon, E., & Giacomini, M. M. (2017). Dynamic
capabilities, marketing capability and organizational performance. BBR Brazilian Business
Review, 14(5), 466-478. doi:10.15728/bbr.2017.14.5.1
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
doi:10.1002/smj.640
Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational
enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8-37. doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.54
Teece, D. J. (2019). A capability theory of the firm: An economics and (strategic) management
perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(1), 1-43. doi:10.1080/00779954.2017.1371208
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-
SMJ882>[Link];2-Z
Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A
bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446. doi:10.1111/ 17
ijmr.12000
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31-51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x 65
Wilden, R., & Gudergan, S. (2017). Service-dominant orientation, dynamic capabilities and
firm performance. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(4), 808-832. doi:10.1108/JSTP-
04-2016-0077
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. P., Nielsen, B. B., & Lings, I. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and
performance: Strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 72-96.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.12.001
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, and extension. Academy of
Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6587995
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351. doi:I 04 7-7039/02/1303/0339
Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm
performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 97-125.
doi:10.1002/smj.288
Zou, S., Taylor, C. R., & Osland, G. E. (1998). The EXPERF Scale: A cross-national
generalized export performance measure. Journal of International Marketing, 6(3), 37-58.
doi:10.2307/25048739

Financial Support
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES)
– Finance Code 001