A definition’s usefulness depends on the discipline’s assumptions about learning

Evidence

Furthermore, concentrating on cost for change might work very well for economists who do not have dynamic and historic worldview. Indeed, Paul David argues for defining path dependence as high costs of change, precisely because he thinks that economics has become such an ahistorical and teleological discipline that any approach that might convince economists to account for the effects of history in their explanations is a great improvement (David, 2001). However, for organization scientists, who firmly believe in organization learning and the accumulation of capabilities, focusing on the cost of change is far less useful. — Georg Schreyögg and Jörg Sydow, The Hidden Dynamics of Path Dependence, 130

Categorization

• XREF: Ties to David’s QWERTY lock-in and the broader organizational-learning literature that resists it.
• QUESTION: If organizations learn, does lock-in dissolve — or do learning and path dependence coexist at different levels?