=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2586/paper3
|storemode=property
|title=Modeling the Dichotomies of Organizational Change:
a State-based Capability Typology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2586/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2586
|authors=Georgios Koutsopoulos,Martin Henkel,Janis Stirna
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifip8-1/KoutsopoulosHS19a
}}
==Modeling the Dichotomies of Organizational Change:
a State-based Capability Typology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2586/paper3.pdf
Modeling the Dichotomies of Organizational Change:
a State-based Capability Typology
Georgios Koutsopoulos, Martin Henkel and Janis Stirna
Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
{georgios,martinh,js}@dsv.su.se
Abstract. Modern digital businesses are facing a constant challenge in adapting
to dynamic environments. Therefore, change has become a significant element
of business analysis. Capability thinking, when applied to business management,
is associated to design and analysis of supporting information systems and is in-
extricably linked to strategy and change. This results in the need to monitor and
analyze how and when the organization’s capabilities need to change. Capability
and change dimensions have been explored in the literature in order to identify
dimensions relevant to organizational change. The identified capability dimen-
sions are purpose, potentiality and ownership while the relevant change dimen-
sions are control, scope, stride, frequency, desire and tempo. The two sets of di-
mensions have been combined forming a typology and visualized in a StateMa-
chine diagram. The contribution of this task lies in the conceptualization of the
dimensions, including the negative aspect of capabilities, which can provide a
starting point for an Enterprise Modeling method optimized for identifying the
need for capability change and guiding the transition.
Keywords: Capability management, Digital business, Business transformation
1 Introduction
Organizations have always been struggling to survive in dynamic environments, since
the external business environments have always been a factor triggering dynamic
change in enterprises. Being flexible and adaptive is a necessity for every modern or-
ganization’s continuity and for this reason, change has been a significant factor affect-
ing business strategy. Change and strategy are inextricably linked. Change drives strat-
egy and strategy drives change [1]. Strategy involves planning, decisions and actions
that are necessary for achieving business goals [2]. Analysis of change, being a part of
strategy, has been a valuable business activity, especially since the rise of digital busi-
nesses. Digitalization of modern enterprises is an inevitable response to the digitaliza-
tion of the environment, yet, it also facilitates the analysis of change.
Capability thinking is at the core of capability management. It improves the produc-
tivity and flexibility, especially of digital enterprises [3]. The concept of enterprise ca-
pability is in focus, not only of the actual business activities, but also of the develop-
ment of information systems (IS) in order to support the business through design and
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under
Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2
analysis of capabilities, using Enterprise Modeling (EM). Capability thinking also al-
lows an organization to be perceived as a set of capabilities. Typically, capabilities are
associated to strategy. The given capabilities an organization currently owns dictate its
strategy and its strategy dictates the capabilities it develops [1]. As far as change is
concerned, capability thinking dictates that any change and improvement to an organi-
zation is associated to capability change and improvement [1]. Capability change refers
to introduction of new capabilities and modification or retirement of existing ones.
As a result, within capability thinking, the importance of change analysis is special-
ized to capability change analysis. A plethora of capability management methods exist,
and the majority of them include capability modeling notations. There is a common
theme among all the methods. The positive aspect of capabilities is the only one ad-
dressed. However, while employed to analyze capability change, a method should in-
clude the chance that an organization’s capability is outdated to a point that it has be-
come harmful, or an actual harmful capability exists in the form of a problem that the
organization is unaware of. In addition, an organization may possess the potential for
producing value in the form of resources that remain unexploited. These are possible
organizational states that a change analysis method should consider and capability anal-
ysis should not be an exception. Not only advantageous and disadvantageous capabili-
ties need to be analyzed, but also the transition from disadvantages to advantages needs
to be facilitated by a method. This will provide the opportunity to identify the need for
a change, not just manage a required change that the organization is aware of.
In this regard, the objective of this paper is to examine and describe the states a
capability goes through when it changes, also incorporating several dichotomies to de-
scribe the change process. The result is a conceptualization of the related states of a
capability evolution lifecycle.
This conceptual study is part of a Design Science Research [4] project that aims to
develop a method and tool support, optimized for modeling enterprise capability
change. In particular, EM will be employed to guide the transition of capabilities in-
cluding the identification of the need for change. Analyzing change can be significantly
benefited by a predefined conceptualization of a set of possible states of a capability.
For this reason, a typology of capability states that includes the absence and the nega-
tive aspect of capability change is analyzed in this study.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief overview of
the related concepts and research. Section 3 briefly states the methods used in this study.
Sections 4 and 5 present the dimensions of capabilities and change respectively, as
elaborated using literature sources and reflection. Section 6 introduces and describes
the capability typology, which is visualized as a model. Section 7 discusses the results
and section 8 provides concluding remarks.
2 Background and Related Research
In this study, a capability is defined as a set of resources, whose configuration bears the
ability and capacity to enable the potential to create value by fulfilling a specific goal
3
within a specific context. This definition is a composition of the definitions provided in
[3] and [5].
In the literature, there exist several capability typologies, the majority of which con-
cern the concept of hierarchical or domain-specific typologies. Regarding the hierar-
chical typologies, a brief summary is presented in Table 1, which has been published
in [5]. A hierarchy of capability types suggests that there are different levels of capa-
bilities. In other words, a higher level capability’s purpose is to affect lower levels of
capabilities and the hierarchical typologies aim to classify capabilities based on their
purpose.
Table 1. A summary of hierarchical capability typologies from [5].
Second Ad
First Meta-
[6] and third infinitum meta
Category capabilities
categories capabilities
First-order Second-order
[7]
Capabilities capabilities
Zero-level First-order Higher order
[8]
Capabilities capabilities capabilities
Substantive Dynamic
[9]
Capabilities capabilities
Classical Radical/Integrated/Routinized dynamic
[10]
Capabilities capabilities
Incremental/
Regenerative
[11] Resource base Renewing
capabilities
capabilities
The domain-specific capability typologies that exist in the literature bear relevance for
capability thinking in general, but the majority do not address change specific concepts.
A few examples are discussed below.
A literature review of organizational IT capability typologies has been presented in
[12]. The two perspectives that have been used as dimensions were the Functional
Technology level and the Information Systems Strategy level. The focus of the Func-
tional Technology level typologies and their components were:
• IT Capabilities for Process Redesign: Transactional, geographical, automational,
analytical, informational, sequential, knowledge management, tracking, disinterme-
diation
• Technological Capability: Application development, communication technology,
database and security, technical support services, Web technology
• IT Infusion in New Product Development: Process Management, project manage-
ment, information/knowledge management, collaboration and communication
• Capability-based IT Classification: Integration, scale, technology focus, accessibil-
ity
The focus and components of the Information Systems Strategy typologies [12] are:
4
• Business Design: Competitive positioning, geographic positioning, redesigning or-
ganization, redeploying human capital
• IT Business Value: Customer relations, Supplier relations, sales and marketing sup-
port, production and operations, product and service enhancement, process planning
and support
• Digital Options: Digitized Process Capital, Digitized Knowledge Capital
• IT for Organizational Design: Value innovation, knowledge work leverage, IT-
enabled business platform, operational excellence, value-chain extension, solutions
delivery
In [13], another domain-specific capability typology for multi-agent systems was
developed using complexity and locality as overlapping dimensions. Based on com-
plexity, capabilities are classified as primitive or composite while the classification of
capabilities according to locality includes external and internal capabilities. Domain-
specific rules are also defining the dual nature of capabilities according to this typology,
for example, an external capability is always primitive.
In [14], a study related to risk management and capabilities has been conducted and
a typology of macro-capabilities has been presented that bear relevance for change.
Four types have been identified. Initially, there is the Delivery type, which refer to an
enterprise’s capabilities that concern the execution of tasks, ranging from services and
the production of goods, to scheduling, controlling and monitoring the production. The
second identified type, namely Integration and Coordination, aims to support the deliv-
ery capabilities by the management and coordination of the dependences among re-
sources so as to find new ways to perform activities. The third identified type is Learn-
ing capabilities that concern the generation of new knowledge in order to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of existing resources. Finally, Reconfiguration capabilities
are about reconfiguring existing resources to potentially lead the organization to
change.
There is also a variety of change typologies based on sets of dimensions. These are
presented and discussed in Section 5 since they have been used for the development of
the suggested capability and change typology.
3 Methodology
The aim of this paper is to examine and describe the states a capability goes through
when it changes, also incorporating several dichotomies to describe the change process.
Literature sources related to change dimensions and attributes have been identified and
used to facilitate the development of a set of dimensions and their associated attributes
that have been applied to the concept of capability and expressed as states. The process
of capability change has been addressed as a separate system for modeling purposes.
Therefore, the change dimensions have been depicted as a juxtaposition of opposing
states in a UML StateMachine diagram [15]. The selection of the specific notation is
the result of the semantic association between change and state transitions, as used in
StateMachine diagrams. Every state transition is a change and the model allows the
5
inclusion, not only of a multiplicity of parallel states, but also the triggering factors that
initiate the state transition and change.
4 Dimensions of Capabilities
The primary dichotomy that needs to be addressed regarding capability change is the
attribute of being adaptive in the configuration of a capability or the absence thereof.
This is reflected as the dichotomy between a static and a dynamic capability. Initially,
it should be noted that by characterizing a capability as dynamic, the authors do not
refer to the term “dynamic capability” [16] which has been widely used in management
literature. Within the context of this study, the term is deliberately eschewed, since it is
considered confusing [5], and the term “strategic capability” is used instead. Any capa-
bilities with adaptive attributes are considered dynamic regardless of them being stra-
tegic or operational. Therefore, any capability whose configuration includes any degree
of adaptability is considered dynamic, while any capability that lacks adaptability is
considered static. That is, the term static refers to capabilities that cannot change. From
a realistic perspective, that would result in an organization with a complete lack of
adaptability and the capability to respond to change, which in return would limit its
survivability. While it may be an unrealistic concept, it cannot be excluded as a possi-
bility and, therefore, it is still necessary to include in a model focused on the conceptual
level.
On a more detailed level of analysis, it is important to depict the existence of a
change process or lack of it. A capability, even while being dynamic, is stable unless a
change process is actively taking place.
─ Purpose: Fulfilling goal vs Avoiding problem
The classification of dynamic, yet stable, capabilities that is proposed in this study
has originally been introduced in [5] and is inspired by the direct association between
capabilities and goals [3] and the discussion about goals in [17]. According to [17],
goals, as desirable states that an enterprise aims to achieve, are also associated to prob-
lems, in the form of undesirable states that an organization aims to avoid. This classifi-
cation has also been inspired by Higgins’ Regulatory Focus Theory, according to
which, there are two goal orientations, promotion and prevention. The former focuses
on advancement, gains and pursuing ideals while the latter focuses on security, non-
losses and fulfilling obligations, a fact which results in a dichotomy of strategic prefer-
ences in goal pursuit, eagerness versus vigilance [18]. Therefore, capabilities can be
classified according to their scope, achieving goals, or avoiding problems. However,
according to the definition used in an earlier section, a capability creates value when
fulfilling a goal. Therefore, the ability and capacity to avoid a problem only contribute
to sustaining the enterprise while having a supporting role. As a result, this type can be
referred to as sustainability. Capability and sustainability are both advantages for an
enterprise.
─ Potentiality: Enabled vs Disabled
6
Both value-producing and sustaining capabilities require that the needed resources
exist, are properly configured and are operationally active. Adopting a pragmatic per-
spective on organizations indicates that this is not what actually occurs on every occa-
sion. A common phenomenon is that resources are missing, are not configured properly,
or the abilities and capacities are not operationalized. This final case is the one that is
addressed as an idle potential, which results in a disabled capability. Enabled potentials
result in advantages, however, if the potential remains idle, then the enterprise is miss-
ing the ability to achieve a goal or avoid a problem. In the case where a capability is
missing, the enterprise is incapable of achieving a goal, therefore it possesses an inca-
pability. The second case is more severe. Lacking the ability to avoid a problem implies
that the enterprise possesses a harmful or outdated capability that may lead to it harming
itself. This enabled potential for self-harm is a negative capability that may be associ-
ated to outdates practices or practices that seem attractive but in fact are harmful when
applied. The latter is similar to the concept of anti-patterns [19] that captures potentially
attractive solutions that backfire when applied. However, the concept of documenting
anti-solutions has not been applied to the capability approach, therefore, this type of
negative capabilities is referred to as anti-capabilities. Table 2 depicts this classifica-
tion.
Table 2. The initial capability classification (adapted from [5]).
Achieve Avoid
Goal Problem
Enabled (Advantages) Capability Sustainability
Disabled (Disadvantages) Incapability Anti-capability
─ Ownership: Single organization vs Inter-organizational
Finally, a stable dynamic capability can be classified according to being owned by a
single organization or being inter-organizational. Within the extended context of the
project to which this study belongs to, it has been identified that analyzing changes on
an inter-organizational level requires focusing on different attributes [20]. The literature
also supports the significant differences in the capabilities of an organization which are
affected by collaborations, for example, the collaborating organizations may be co-
evolving [1].
5 Dimensions of Change
The existing literature has been characterized by a dichotomist perspective and most of
the studies have been focused on one or at least a few of the dimensions of change and
their opposing states [21]. The dichotomies and attributes of change have been a topic
7
of research during the last decades, therefore, a variety of change dimensions and at-
tributes have been identified and presented. The vast existing literature has been sum-
marized in [21] and the result is a homogenous set of eight dimensions and their oppos-
ing attributes describing change in a dynamic way. Most of them have been included
in the suggested typology. The set that Maes and Van Hootegem [21] presented consists
of the following dimensions, starting from the included ones:
─ Control: Planned vs Unplanned or Emergent change [21, 22] in association with in-
tention and desire
This dimension concerns the degree of control the enterprise has over a change. On
the one hand, a planned change occurs due to deliberate and conscious actions and re-
quires clear objectives and systematic scheduling. It also requires the change to be in-
tentional since it aims for particular results. On the other hand, unplanned change does
not involve intention. It emerges due to the dynamics of the enterprise’s environment.
However, it is possible for a change to be anticipated, even if it is unplanned. This
concept provides an opportunity for decomposition. Anticipation is also a relevant
change dimension and has been included in the typology and model. The concept of
plan implies the existence of anticipation and prediction of a change. However, antici-
pating a change does not automatically imply planning. Therefore, anticipation should
be considered as a separate dimension that precedes the planning factor. Anticipation
has been addressed as a change dimension in domain-specific approaches, for example,
while analyzing self-adapting systems [23]. Source and type are also mentioned as
change dimensions in that study, however, the suggested attributes are domain-specific,
so they are not included in the typology. In addition, the intention dimension is associ-
ated to control, therefore it is not considered a separate category, even though it is in-
cluded.
In addition, the existence of both goals and problems in this approach also requires
the inclusion of desire as a dimension of change since the negative side of change needs
to be addressed as well. This is in line with other business analysis methods which are
not associated to capabilities, for example the SWOT analysis [24].
─ Scope of change: Adaptation vs Transformation [21]
Scope addresses how intense the change is. What essentially differentiates adapta-
tion and transformation is the degree of change and the impact that the change inflicts
on the enterprise. Adaptation refers to readjustments based on context observation,
while transformation refers to radical change that often involves abandoning of the
original orientation of the enterprise. This attribute is considered important for the sug-
gested typology.
─ Frequency: Continuous vs Discontinuous [21, 23] or Discrete
This dimension addresses the number of times a change is happening. A change that
is characterized as discontinuous happens occasionally and episodically. They are usu-
8
ally required after the enterprise has failed to respond in time to a change in its envi-
ronment. On the opposite side, a change that is continuous when the enterprise’s inter-
nal logic is gradually adapting to the dynamic conditions of the environment.
─ Stride: Incremental or Gradual vs Revolutionary [21]
The stride dimension is associated to the quantity of steps or stages that are required
before a change has been realized. The term incremental describes a change that is de-
livered as small the accumulation of consecutive adjustments. It is focused on individ-
ual parts of an enterprise. On the contrary, revolutionary change refers to major shifts
where the deep structure of the enterprise is usually dismantled. Stride should not be
confused with control. Control is about the end state while stride is about the pace of
change.
─ Tempo: Slow vs Quick [21]
Tempo is the second time-related dimension. It concerns the pace of change. How-
ever, this one is not linear since the pace can change from slow to quick and vice versa,
thus it is relevant to the analysis of capability dynamics. For this reason, it is included
in the typology.
The following dimensions have not been included in the typology. The reasons have
been explained separately.
─ Time: Long vs Short [21]
This dimension concerns the duration of a change. It is the only dimension whose
state change is linear, since a change is starting with a short duration, it may become
long, but cannot go back to short, in other words, not long. For this specific reason it is
not taken into consideration for the suggested capability typology because it does not
affect change analysis. It is only considered a boundary defining task.
─ Goal: Open vs Strict [21]
A goal is defined as a desired state to be achieved, therefore it is associated to change
analysis in terms of evaluating it once it is implemented. As an identified change di-
mension, it is associated to the attributes open, strict and the entire spectrum between
them. The inclusion of goals in the typology has been discussed in the previous section.
In addition, as mentioned earlier, this study adopts the definition of goals from [17] that
also associates the concept with avoiding problems. The goal of a capability change is
to transition from one capability state to another and this is driven by the goal of the
capability. The goal of the change can be decomposed using the included dimensions
and its inclusion as a separate dimension can invoke confusion. In order to avoid any
possible confusion in the typology and model, this dimension has been excluded.
─ Style: Participative vs Coercive [21]
9
The style dimension refers to style of leadership and decision making. The attributes
associated to it are on one hand participative and coercive along with any states in be-
tween and, on the other hand, self-governing and directive. Self-governing change is
performed by any involved parties but a directive change is enforced by the authorities.
This dimension and its associated attributes have been excluded from the suggested
capability typology and model due to the fact that, especially, the second dichotomy,
overlaps with the intention dimension which has already been included in association
to the control dimension.
6 A StateMachine Diagram for Capability and Change
The typology is visualized as a UML StateMachine diagram, as shown in Fig. 1. Its
initial pseudostate leads to the Static state, to which any addition of adaptability triggers
the transition to being Dynamic. If the adaptability is removed from the capability’s
configuration, it returns to being Static. Taking into consideration that the point of focus
of the model is capability change, there will be no insight provided from any attempt to
decompose the Static state. Therefore, Static has been modeled as a simple state, while
Dynamic is a composite state which includes a plethora of sub-states. The capability
can also transition to a Retired state in case the enterprise retires it. This is the only state
that may also lead to the final state in the model. Note that the dashed lines in the model
separate parallel states. For example, a capability change can be both Incremental and
Slow at the same time.
Within the Dynamic composite state, the two main states are Changing and Stable
to reflect a change in progress or the lack of it, respectively. The Stable state includes
two parallel sub-states. The first one concerns if the capability is inter-organizational
or not, belonging to a Single-organization as a default state after the initial pseudostate
and a starting collaboration event triggers the transition to the Inter-organizational state,
while any event stopping the collaboration returns the state to Single organization. The
second parallel sub-state concerns the scope and enabling of capabilities. Therefore, the
initial pseudostate leads to the Potential state leading to a choice pseudostate to distin-
guish between an idle and enabled potential. The enabled potential leads to a succeeding
choice pseudostate which in return leads to a Capability state and a Sustainability state,
triggered by their scope, fulfilling a goal or avoiding a problem. In order to avoid any
possible confusion, it should be clarified that in this diagram the Capability state refers
to the default state of a normal value-generating capability. On the other side of the
spectrum, an idle potential is succeeded by a choice pseudostate that leads to a scope-
based state transition to Incapability or Anti-capability. If the given goal or problem is
removed, all four states transition back to Potential. Possible transitions exist within
both scopes. If the ability and capacity to fulfill a goal is gained, Incapability transitions
to Capability and vice versa in case it is lost. Similarly, if the ability to avoid a goal is
gained, Anti-capability transitions to Sustainability and vice versa.
Initiating any change triggers the transition to a Changing state. If the change is
stopped or implemented, the state transitions back to Stable. In addition, any state
change within the composite Changing state, is a recursive transition that results in the
10
Fig. 1. The capability and change typology visualized as a StateMachine diagram.
11
state remaining Changing. Within the composite state, there exist six initial pseudo-
states that lead to parallel sub-states that reflect the dimensions discussed earlier. The
five first depict dichotomies. The first one concerns Adaptation and Transformation
and the events of increasing or decreasing the intensity result in the transition from the
former to the latter and vice versa respectively. The second state is about frequency and
includes the Continuous and Discontinuous states and the events that cause them to
transition to each other, in particular, interrupting and stopping to interrupt the change.
The third state represents the stride dimension, and as a result, includes the Incremental
and Revolutionary states. Expanding or downsizing the application of change triggers
the transitions between the two states. The fourth state includes the dimension of desire,
with the states Desirable and Undesirable transitions triggered when any opportunities
or threats are perceived. The fifth state depicts the states associated to the tempo di-
mension, Slow and Quick. Increasing or reducing the pace of change may provoke tran-
sitions from one state to another. It depends on the boundaries set and the definitions
of Slow and Fast, as decided by the enterprise.
The sixth parallel state is more complex, since it combines several dichotomies. The
initial pseudostate is succeeded by a choice pseudostate to reflect the intention factor
with the states Intentional and Unintentional. A “need to change” event triggers the
transition of Unintentional to Unplanned. Any prediction of the capability change tran-
sitions it to the Anticipated state. The same rule applies to the Intentional state. The
Unplanned state can also transition to the Improvised state in case an ad hoc response
is applied. Anticipated transitions to Planned if a plan is developed and returns to An-
ticipated when triggered by a plan rejection. Both Planned and Improvised states tran-
sition to In progress state if a capability change implementation is commenced. In pro-
gress returns to the intention factor if an interruption event triggers it.
7 Discussion
The dichotomies used for the development of this typology do not imply that the attrib-
utes are supposed to be exclusive extremes. On the contrary, every dichotomy repre-
sents a spectrum of states. From the low level dichotomies of capability change, to the
highest level of continuity and change, an organization should aim to embrace the du-
ality thinking, recognizing the merits of both sides [25] on different occasions and under
different circumstances. Even the negative aspect of capabilities is a missing concept
in capability thinking and this is the gap that this paper aims to address.
The main contribution of this work is the conceptualization of the negative aspect of
capabilities and its combination with the dimensions of change for which, up to date,
there was no research effort devoted to. Conceptualizing the absence and the negative
aspect of a capability will provide the opportunity and support to identify missing op-
portunities or problems that an organization is unaware of, since the inclusion of the
associated concepts will serve as a starting point for an improved monitoring function
in a capability-based system.
This analysis is in line with the earlier work conducted within this project, where a
framework was developed to provide structure on capability change by identifying the
12
phases, functions and information elements required for a system supporting adaptive
capability architectures [26]. The three main change functions in the framework are
observation, decision and delivery of capability change. The capability and change
states presented in the typology in this paper can be combined with the framework ele-
ments towards the development of a detailed meta-model optimized for supporting ca-
pability change. For example, the control-related states can be valuable for improving
the observation and decision functions. Any emergent, unintentional or improvised
change is directly indicating a run-time adjustment which would lead the system to
respond by selecting a proper capability variation, if one can efficiently address the
emergent need, or by suggesting the development of a new variation. In other words,
any change that is identified as unplanned, unintentional or improvised should be asso-
ciated to the run-time phase of capability development, while a change that is planned
or intentional can also be associated to the design phase of the system. In another ex-
ample, identifying the tempo of change as slow or quick can affect the allocation of
resources for the change activities based on the identified state.
The question still remains of how the capability and change typology can be inte-
grated during the development of a meta-model. Before the development of a meta-
model, there should be an association between specific attributes of a capability that is
in a specific state. The dimensions will need to be included as super-classes describing
a capability and any instantiation of a dimension class will trigger the instantiation of
specific sub-classes based on context-related observation. This will act as a restriction
of the possible courses of action by directing the capability transition according to the
state transitions of the typology. For example, emergent change does not involve inten-
tion [21], therefore, all the possible associated attributes of a capability that is emergent,
can automatically exclude all the possible associated attributes of an intentional or
planned capability change.
8 Conclusion
In this study, a conceptual exploration of the concepts of capability and change has
been performed in order to prepare a predefined set of states and their transition rules.
Literature sources concerning change and capability, along with reflection from the au-
thors resulted in a set of dimensions relevant to capability change. The most relevant
capability dimensions its purpose, potentiality and ownership, while the relevant
change dimensions are control, scope, frequency, stride, tempo and desire. Combining
the two sets of dimensions resulted in a typology. The suggested typology has been
developed and visualized as a UML StateMachine diagram.
During the next steps of this research project, the typology will be combined with
the change function framework that was introduced in [26] and empirical research in
order to provide the input for the development of a capability change meta-model, that
will, in return, be part of a method supporting capability change, with an emphasis on
digital organizations.
13
References
1. Hoverstadt, P., Loh, L.: Patterns of strategy. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London ;
New York (2017).
2. Cunliffe, A.L.: Organization theory. SAGE, Los Angeles ; London (2008).
3. Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J. eds: Capability Management in Digital Enterprises. Springer Inter-
national Publishing, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90424-5.
4. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Re-
search. MIS Quarterly. 28, 75–105 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625.
5. Koutsopoulos, G.: Modeling Organizational Potentials Using the Dynamic Nature of Capa-
bilities. In: Joint Proceedings of the BIR 2018 Short Papers, Workshops and Doctoral Con-
sortium. pp. 387–398. CEUR-WS.org, Stockholm, Sweden (2018).
6. Collis, D.J.: Research Note: How Valuable are Organizational Capabilities? Strategic Man-
agement Journal. 15, 143–152 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150910.
7. Danneels, E.: The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences: The Dynamics of
Product Innovation. Strategic Management Journal. 23, 1095–1121 (2002).
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.275.
8. Winter, S.G.: Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal. 24, 991–
995 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318.
9. Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J., Davidsson, P.: Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A
Review, Model and Research Agenda*. Journal of Management Studies. 43, 917–955
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x.
10. Schreyögg, G., Kliesch-Eberl, M.: How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? To-
wards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal. 28,
913–933 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.613.
11. Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., Collier, N.: Dynamic Capabilities: An Exploration of How
Firms Renew their Resource Base. British Journal of Management. 20, S9–S24 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00610.x.
12. Lee, O.-K., Lim, K., Wei, K.-K.: The Roles of Information Technology in Organizational
Capability Building: An IT Capability Perspective. ICIS 2004 Proceedings. (2004).
13. White, A., Tate, A., Rovatsos, M.: CAMP-BDI: A Pre-emptive Approach for Plan Execution
Robustness in Multiagent Systems. In: Chen, Q., Torroni, P., Villata, S., Hsu, J., and Omi-
cini, A. (eds.) PRIMA 2015: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. pp. 65–84.
Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25524-
8_5.
14. Arena, M., Azzone, G., Cagno, E., Ferretti, G., Prunotto, E., Silvestri, A., Trucco, P.: Inte-
grated Risk Management through dynamic capabilities within project-based organizations:
The Company Dynamic Response Map. Risk Manag. 15, 50–77 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2012.12.
15. Object Management Group (OMG): OMG® Unified Modeling Language®,
https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF, (2017).
16. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strate-
gic Management Journal. 18, 509–533 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.
17. Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business
Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43725-4.
14
18. Roczniewska, M., Higgins, E.T.: Messaging organizational change: How regulatory fit re-
lates to openness to change through fairness perceptions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. 85, 103882 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103882.
19. Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Anti-patterns as a Means of Focusing on Critical Quality Aspects in
Enterprise Modeling. In: Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer,
P., and Ukor, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. pp.
407–418. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01862-6_33.
20. Henkel, M., Koutsopoulos, G., Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Using Enterprise Models for Change
Analysis in Inter-organizational Business Processes. In: Di Ciccio, C., Gabryelczyk, R., Gar-
cía-Bañuelos, L., Hernaus, T., Hull, R., Indihar Štemberger, M., Kő, A., and Staples, M.
(eds.) Business Process Management: Blockchain and Central and Eastern Europe Forum.
pp. 315–318. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-30429-4_21.
21. Maes, G., Van Hootegem, G.: Toward a Dynamic Description of the Attributes of Organi-
zational Change. In: (Rami) Shani, A.B., Woodman, R.W., and Pasmore, W.A. (eds.) Re-
search in Organizational Change and Development. pp. 191–231. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-3016(2011)0000019009.
22. Burnes, B.: Managing change. Pearson, Harlow, England (2014).
23. Andersson, J., de Lemos, R., Malek, S., Weyns, D.: Modeling Dimensions of Self-Adaptive
Software Systems. In: Cheng, B.H.C., de Lemos, R., Giese, H., Inverardi, P., and Magee, J.
(eds.) Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems. pp. 27–47. Springer, Berlin, Hei-
delberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02161-9_2.
24. Law, J.: A dictionary of business and management: over 7,000 entries. Oxford Univ. Press,
Oxford (2009).
25. Graetz, F., Smith, A.C.T.: The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms
of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews. 10, 265–280 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00222.x.
26. Koutsopoulos, G., Henkel, M., Stirna, J.: Dynamic Adaptation of Capabilities: Exploring
Meta-model Diversity. In: Reinhartz-Berger, I., Zdravkovic, J., Gulden, J., and Schmidt, R.
(eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. pp. 181–195.
Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20618-
5_13.