Dynamic capabilities

Teece et al. (1997) defined dynamic capabilities as follows:

The ability of an organization to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address exceedingly changing environments. A capability to be strategic, it must cover a customer need (so there is a source of income), it must be unique (so the products/services produced can be assigned a price without considering too much the competition), and difficult to replicate (so the benefits will not have competition). The key feature of a distinctive competence is that there is no market for it, except, possibly, through the business unit market. Therefore, competencies and capabilities are attractive assets that must be built because they cannot be bought (p. 516-518).

Since this term emerged, different authors have conducted research that provides new points of view. Currently, there is a consensus regarding the definition of dynamic capabilities. However, there is no consensus among different researchers concerning the types of dynamic capabilities (^{Monferrer, Blesa, & Ripollés, 2013}) and the indicators to measure these (^{Wang & Ahmed, 2007}).

Therefore, in this research work, the types of dynamic capabilities established by De-Pablos and López Berzosa (2012) have been adopted:

Measurement of absorption capability

The measurement of absorption capability has largely been studied. Several authors such as Aragón and Rubio (2005), Minbaeva, Pedersen, Bjorkman, Frey and Park (2003) and Murovec and Prodan (2009) conclude in their research that the level of absorption capability improves with human resources management practices, e.g., training.

Likewise, the studies carried out by Rasli, Madjid and Asmi (2004, cited by ^{González and García-Muiña, 2011}) and Aragón and Rubio (2005) show that recruitment and selection processes are decisive in the absorption capability of organizations.

Authors such as Li (2007), Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2011), Ebers and Maurer (2014) and González-Campo and Hurtado (2014) emphasize that access to external information sources is directly related to the absorption capability, as it allows organizations to gain access to valuable external knowledge. Therefore, access to external information sources (e.g., livestock farmers, guilds, professionals) and the use of advisors on essential aspects of their activity, the conditions of such advisory services and the frequency of these, are indicators of absorption capability in livestock farms. Table 2 shows the indicators of absorption capability proposed and the authors that support these.

Table 1. Detection capability indicators 

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Table 2. Absorption capability indicators 

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Measurement of integration capability

As De-Pablos et al. (2013) stated: "knowledge is the information set in the context of an experience, which can be personal or collective" (p 43). Bravo-Ibarra and Herrera (2009) considered that knowledge management and organizational routines establish the company's integration capability and point out that good practice is the use of technology to transfer knowledge. Currently, information technology systems provide mechanisms for strategic management decisions (^{Petter, Delone, & McLean, 2012}; ^{Shahbazi, Haghshenas, Nassiriyar, & Sadeghzadeh, 2016}) and to integrate external knowledge into the activities of organizations (^{Materia, Pascucci, & Dries, 2017}).

Consequently, an event registration system in livestock farms can be considered as a database that stores relevant information in the operating process of these types of operations. This database allows the use and exchange of information through employees (^{Bravo-Ibarra & Herrera, 2009}) and, subsequently, it can be used for decision making; this information becomes part of the operation, not of the individual, and can lead to changes in existing organizational routines or the design of new ones. The use of this information increases its efficiency, which gives rise to a better understanding of what would be provided by each of the activities of the livestock operation value chain separately.

The planning process refers to the definition of the company's objectives and the most appropriate means to achieve them (^{Araya-Leandro, 2017}; ^{Guerras-Martín & Navas-López, 2015}); that is, it includes making decisions in the present about the future of the company, which translates into an organizational capability of the company (^{Byrd & Davidson, 2003}). Managers need to know the existing resources in the company, a situation that impacts on the development of dynamic capabilities (^{Daneels, 2010}), and must also understand the organization as a whole, as well as its relationship with the environment (^{Guerras-Martín & Navas-López, 2015}), which facilitates the coordination of employees and the development of behavior patterns.

In this sense, the use of the technological capacity installed in the milking room supposes a global vision of the operation, given that information about the number of sheep in the farm that provides milk, the periodicity with which they must be milked, and the available technological capacity must be known.

For this reason, and in this research, it is interesting to use the variables referring to the planning, plans, and use of the technological capacity installed in the milking room as indicators of the integration capability.

The use of milk control as a management strategy allows livestock farms to differentiate their livestock by production and allows them to select those sheep that best fit the characteristics that milk must meet to make Manchego cheese. Also, this strategy facilitates their comparison with other farms to know in what situation they are. To the extent that the farms use this management strategy, they will integrate the knowledge acquired about their position compared to other farms and the features of their dairy production with the internal knowledge they already have, and adapt their organizational routines as a result of this integration, through simple formal interventions, which will make decision-making easier for decision-makers (^{Bravo-Ibarra & Herrera, 2009}; ^{Okhuysen & Eisendhadt, 2002}).

In this sense, the adaptation of the diet to the productive state of the animals, the use of minerals and food supplements, or the use of food conservation methods such as silage or haymaking to provide quality feed to livestock at times when there is no fresh food available, favor that the cattle operations reach efficiency in their productive processes.

The use of ultrasound scans to identify nonproductive animals as well as the andrological evaluation of the rams involves the integration of that knowledge with the one that the operation itself already has, allowing the management to make decisions about how to use these non-productive animals efficiently. Likewise, the use of management strategies such as livestock, fences, rotational or deferred grazing, among others, integrates ecological knowledge in the improvement of sustainable pasture management (^{Caballero, 2009}).

With regard to the selection of animals, since 1988 a program to improve the Manchega breed is in force aiming at "increasing milk production per sheep and lactation, which will establish an increase in economic profitability and sustainability of the exploitations" (^{Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural Marino [marm], 2011}, p.7). Thanks to this program, a significant increase in milk production has been obtained (^{Arias et al., 2016}). In this way, the selection of the most suitable animals for dairy production allows the farms to be more efficient.

In all the indicated cases, it can be affirmed that these methods, techniques, and strategies are the result of the knowledge integration capability into new knowledge because it has been developed within the operation or acquired through relationships with other breeders or associations and with the existing knowledge within the operations. Further, this facilitates this knowledge becoming explicit through organizational routines (^{Huang & Newell, 2003}). Table 3 shows the indicators of integration capability proposed and the authors that support these.

Table 3. Integration capability indicators 

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Table 3 (cont.) Integration capability indicators 

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Measurement of innovation capability

The establishment of strategies to improve water use efficiency and soil conservation implies the introduction of innovative processes (Deeds et al., 1999; Delmas, 1999; Lazonick & Prencipe, 2005; Petroni, 1998; Tripsas, 1997; Wang & Ahmed, 2004, all cited by De-Pablos & López Berzosa, 2012) in livestock operations, aiming at being more efficient and reducing production unit costs, so it can be considered as an indicator of innovation capability.

To the extent that livestock farms incorporate the prevention of other pathologies according to the epidemiology of the operation, they will include improvements in the food, management and health areas (^{Molina, Yamaki, Berruga, Althaus, & Molina, 2010}) and therefore, in processes whose purpose is the improvement of quality and production.

Arias et al. (2016), in their study on the integral quality of the manchego sheep milk, analyzed various livestock aspects and concluded that the presence of somatic cells affects the clotting time and hardness of the curd in milk. This has a direct influence on milk quality, as, at higher somatic cell count, the coagulation time is longer, obtaining lower hardness that reduces milk quality.

Based on the above, the establishment of a health control program of the udder and the milk quality introduces significant changes in the process of obtaining milk, to improve its quality and therefore, it is an indicator of innovation capability.

One of the most important aspects about the health of the sheep udder is mastitis, particularly clinical mastitis, which has the greatest impact on the profitability of livestock, as it causes a reduction in milk production and increases production costs by reducing the shelf life of the sheep. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the replacement rate of animals (^{Acero, 2009}). Through the employment of techniques such as the drying treatment (^{Gonzalo, Tardáguila, De la Fuente, & San Primitivo, 2004}) and the disinfection of the teat after milking as part of the cleaning protocol (^{Torre, 2003}), the appearance of mastitis is reduced. For that reason, the introduction of these techniques is considered as process innovations.

Arias et al. (2012) analyze the impact of the lack of milking hygiene on the appearance of germs and butyric spores in milk, which affects the quality of milk and causes late swelling in cheeses. The introduction of automatic cleaning systems for milking equipment and the compliance with a cleaning protocol for the milking parlor area reduces the problems described above. Moreover, this implies an improvement in the process and are therefore included as an indicator of innovation capability.

Parasites have a negative effect on the development of sheep since they can cause diseases that also have a negative influence on the products obtained from sheep (^{Rodríguez-Vivas, Cob-Galera, & Domínguez-Alpizar, 2001}). For that reason, the introduction of parasite controls is considered an innovation in the process to improve the performance of the entire operation.

As indicated by Rivas, De-Pablos-Heredero, Rangel and García (2015), the artificial breeding of lambs is an innovation that has not been adopted much. It is considered, therefore, that the variable “Do you have a room and equipment for artificial lamb breeding” is an indicator of innovation capability. Gibbons and Cueto (2008) pointed out that artificial insemination allows "conserving the genetic variability of the species subject to a continuous breeding process of its productive characteristics" (p. 3), which means the introduction of substantial changes in the productive process. For this reason, the variables “Do you use reproductive techniques” and “Do you implement the use of artificial insemination” will be used to measure innovation capability.

Callejo-Ramos (2001) indicates that adequate milking installations influence the maximization of milking performance and, therefore, the reduction in costs. To the extent that the provision of the milking parlor and, by extension, of the different areas of the farm facilitates animal flow and the more effective implementation of activities —and takes into account the appropriate dimension of the milking rooms as well as the dairy and refrigeration tank rooms— the costs incurred will be lower compared to those farms that have not considered this. Table 4 shows the indicators of innovation capability proposed and the authors that support these.

Table 4. Innovation capability indicators 

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Table 4 (cont.) Innovation capability indicators 

Source: Elaborated by the authors