Compressed Adaptation: The Pacing of Dynamic Capability Development in the Era of Generative AI – A Case of Shell Kenya

References

[1] Barnett, W. P., & Hansen, M. T. (1996). The Red Queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 139-157.

[2] Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at work (NBER Working Paper No. 31161). National Bureau of Economic Research.

[3] Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.

[4] Davenport, T. H., & Mittal, N. (2023). How generative AI is changing creative work. Harvard Business Review.

[5] Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.

[6] Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.

[7] Haefner, N., Parida, V., & Gassmann, O. (2023). Artificial intelligence and innovation: A review and research agenda. Technovation, 133, 103013.

[8] Khanagha, S., Mahroeian, H., & Mihalache, O. R. (2024). Navigating the AI revolution: A dynamic capabilities perspective on organizational adaptation. Long Range Planning, 57(2), 102397.

[9] Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6, 201-235.

[10] Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. (2011). Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2), 235-252.

[11] Mollick, E. (2024). Co-intelligence: Living and working with AI. Penguin Random House.

[12] Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2024). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 49(1), 192-210.

[13] Regnér, P., & Edman, J. (2014). MNE institutional advantage: How subunits shape, transpose and evade host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 275-302.

[14] Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20-24.

[15] Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.

[16] Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 8-37.

[17] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

[18] Wu, J., & Pangarkar, N. (2022). The optimal pace of foreign market expansion: A contingency perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(7), 1418-1443.

[19] Zhao, Y., Tan, H., & Papanastassiou, M. (2024). The geopolitics of AI standards and their impact on MNE strategy. Journal of World Business, 59(2), 101534.

@article{1714054,
      author = {Wekesa, Evans Malava, Wekesa, Moses Soita},
      title = {Compressed Adaptation: The Pacing of Dynamic Capability Development in the Era of Generative AI – A Case of Shell Kenya},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {8},
      pages = {126-131},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1714054.pdf},
      abstract = {International business scholars examine how firms adapt to rapid global shifts. This paper explores the temporal dynamics of dynamic capability development in a legacy multinational enterprise (MNE) subsidiary in an emerging market responding to Generative AI—a disruption marked by unprecedented pace. Through an in-depth longitudinal case study of Shell Kenya (2022-2024), we examine how a historically stable, asset-intensive firm compresses its adaptation cycle to integrate a high-velocity, knowledge-based technology. We identify a process of “compressed adaptation,” in which the canonical stages of sensing, seizing, and transforming (Teece, 2007) are not sequential but highly iterative, concurrent, and mutually constitutive. Sensing evolves from periodic scanning to continuous, AI-augmented environmental monitoring. Seizing is parallelized through multiple, fast-moving “sprint teams” that prototype use cases in real time. Crucially, transforming—the reconfiguration of routines, structures, and skills—begins in medias res, before seizing is complete, to build the organizational capacity to absorb and scale AI initiatives. This compressed process challenges traditional, linear models of strategic renewal and highlights the acute temporal pressures on emerging-market subsidiaries of Western MNEs. We contribute to IB theory by (1) providing a temporal process model of dynamic capability development for high-velocity technologies, (2) explicating the microfoundations of pacing—the strategic orchestration of speed and sequence—in a legacy MNE context, and (3) theorizing the unique liability of legacy faced by established firms in emerging markets when confronting paradigm-shifting digital disruptions. The study reveals that competitive survival for such firms depends less on possession of cutting-edge AI assets and more on the ability to radically accelerate and re-sequence their internal learning and reconfiguration cycles to match the pace of the global technological frontier.},
      keywords = {Dynamic Capabilities, Generative AI, Pacing, Adaptation, Emerging Markets, Kenya, MNE Subsidiary, Temporal Strategy, Digital Transformation, Organizational Learning},
      month = {February},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I8-1714054}
  }