Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres Managing asset orchestration: A processual approach to adapting to dynamic environments Svante Schriber ⁎ , Jan Löwstedt Stockholm Business School, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Dynamic capabilities Environmental dynamism Managerial coordination Asset orchestration Sequencing Balancing ABSTRACT The organizational ability to adapt to dynamic environments through asset orchestration is at the core of dy- namic capabilities research. However, the theory remains vague regarding how firm assets are orchestrated, and the present study addresses this gap. We develop an asset-level framework distinguishing four modes with which dynamic capabilities influence assets and apply it on longitudinal, in-depth qualitative case data. Revealing managerial considerations regarding how assets are orchestrated over time, we propose the terms sequencing and balancing to denote how similar and different orchestration modes, respectively, are combined in the processes. We relate these concepts to managerial coordination and to achieving timely and appropriate orga- nizational response to environmental dynamism. Avenues for future research and prescriptions to practitioners are suggested. 1. Introduction Research on dynamic capabilities theory aims to explain how or- ganizations survive or even achieve competitive advantage by adjusting firm assets in response to changing environments (Helfat & Winter, 2011; Makkonen, Pohjola, Olkkonen, & Koponen, 2014; Romme, Zollo, & Berends, 2010; Schilke, 2014a; Teece, 2007; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Thus, dynamic capabilities are generally considered “the capa- city of an organization to purposefully create, extend, or modify its resource base” (Helfat et al., 2007: 1), including tangible and intangible assets and ordinary capabilities. Dynamic capabilities appear in a variety of functions, including analytical abilities (Wamba et al., 2017), alliance portfolio (Jiang, Tao, & Santoro, 2010) or network manage- ment (Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012), however, research has specifically highlighted dynamic capabilities in the context of product development as a central means of responding to environmental dynamism (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Kindström, Kowalkowski, & Sandberg, 2013; Teece et al., 1997; Teece & Pisano, 1994). Consider the case of Metso Paper, a division of the global Metso industrial corporation. It faced a period of market transformation, in- cluding a combination of interrelated unpredictable economic, tech- nological, and demand shifts. Systemic efforts were initiated to re- establish its ability to develop, produce, and market its products globally. At the center of these efforts were substantial adjustments of the intangible and tangible assets owned by the firm or in its network, requiring coordination by decision-makers at various hierarchical levels and functions—a process resulting in the development of a timely so- lution to meet changing technological and commercial demands. Beyond illustrating a case of a successful organizational response to environmental changes, the Metso Paper case allows us to elaborate the process in which dynamic capabilities adjust firm assets, thereby ad- dressing a gap in dynamic capabilities theory. Much effort has been invested in conceptual development (Barreto, 2010), such as the higher layers of dynamic capabilities (Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Salvato & Vassolo, 2017; Schilke, 2014b). Relatively less has been invested in how dynamic capabilities are im- plemented to respond to new circumstances (Barreto, 2010). Still, stu- dies have identified the intersection between dynamic capabilities and assets as an important link for research (Newey & Zahra, 2009), and despite recent advances clarifying the importance of monitoring and orchestrating the width and depth of firm assets (Danneels, 2011; Sirmon, Hitt, Ireland, & Gilbert, 2011), concerns are raised that dy- namic capabilities theory remains underdeveloped regarding how firms orchestrate assets (Mulders & Romme, 2009). Specifically, if theory is to explain how some firms manage to orchestrate assets in dynamic en- vironments, the time dimension needs consideration since orchestrating appropriately but too slowly likely reduces competitiveness. Accord- ingly, dynamic capabilities research has explicitly called for more at- tention to how asset orchestration plays out over time (Leiblein, 2011). This study aims to contribute to dynamic capabilities research by elaborating the process of how firm assets are orchestrated in response to environmental dynamism. We consider asset orchestration a process https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.027 Received 29 May 2017; Received in revised form 18 May 2018; Accepted 19 May 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: svante.schriber@sbs.su.se (S. Schriber), jan.lowstedt@sbs.su.se (J. Löwstedt). Journal of Business Research 90 (2018) 307–317 0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. T