Beyond best practice

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000nab a2200000 i 4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20071506873</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20080418125259.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="007">hzruuu---uuuu</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">050617e20050321usa||||    | |00010|eng d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">922.111</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080099978</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Gratton, Lynda</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Beyond best practice</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Lynda Gratton, Sumatra Ghoshal</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1="8" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">This article is based on our case research over the lest five years into how dynamic capabilities lead to competitive advantage. We focused on companies that had demon-strated superior performance from 1997 to 2002, compared to their peers. However, superior performance can be a result of other factors, such as a monopoly, extensive regulations or heavy use of patents. We chose companies whose success was not due to those factors. We studied eight firms and use data from three of them in this article</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080606091</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Estrategia empresarial</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080546991</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Empresas</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080554811</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Industrias</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080592639</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Prácticas laborales</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080568399</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Competitividad</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080594312</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Ventaja competitiva</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080571566</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Casos prácticos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080163792</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Ghosal, Sumantra</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="740" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Sloan management review</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="t">Sloan management review</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">Boulder</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">Vol. 46, nº 3, Spring 2005 ; p. 49-57</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>