Strategic factor markets,scale free resources,and economic performance: The impact of product market rivalry

This paper analyzes how scale free resources, which can be acquired by multiple firms simultaneously and deployed against one another in product market competition, will be priced in strategic factor markets, and what the consequences are for the acquiring firms' performance. Based on a game‐theoretic model, it shows how the impact of strategic factor markets on economic profits is influenced by product market rivalry, preexisting competitive (dis)advantages, and the interaction of acquired resources with those preexisting asymmetries. New insights include the result that resource suppliers will aim at (and largely succeed in) setting resource prices so that the acquiring firms earn negative strategic factor market profits—sacrificing some of their preexisting market power rents—by acquiring resources that they know to be overpriced. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competitive advantage and performance: the impact of value creation and costliness of imitation

We create an industrial organization type model to relate resources to the spread between product market demand and marginal cost. We define competitive advantage as the cross‐sectional differential in this spread, and performance as the longitudinal differential between what a firm appropriates in the product market and what it paid in the factor market. With factor markets imposing different costs on the innovator and potential imitator(s), competitive advantage, performance, and high resource value do not necessarily coincide. Also, the interaction between resource value and the cost of imitation is complex and affected by the number of firms in the industry. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource‐based perspective

In this study we revisit some fundamental questions that are increasingly at the heart of current strategic management discourse regarding the relative impact of industry and firm‐specific factors on sustainable competitive advantage. We explore this issue by referring to respective assertions of two major perspectives that dominate the literature over the last two decades: the Porter framework of competitive strategy and the more recent resource‐based view of the firm. A composite model is proposed which elaborates upon both perspectives' divergent causal logic with respect to the conditions relevant for firm success. Empirical findings suggest that industry and firm specific effects are both important but explain different dimensions of performance. Where industry forces influence market performance and profitability, firm assets act upon accomplishments in the market arena (i.e., market performance), and via the latter, to profitability. The paper concludes with directions for future research that will seek to integrate both content and process aspects of firm behavior. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Time delays,competitive interdependence,and firm performance

Research summary: Competitors' experiences of prior interactions shape patterns of rivalry over time. However, mechanisms that influence learning from competitive experience remain largely unexamined. We develop a computational model of dyadic rivalry to examine how time delays in competitors' feedback influence their learning. Time delays are inevitable because the process of executing competitive moves takes time, and the market's responses unfold gradually. We analyze how these lags impact learning and, subsequently, firms' competitive behavior, industry profits, and performance heterogeneity. In line with the extant learning literature, our findings reveal that time delays hinder learning from experience. However, this counterintuitively increases rivals' profits by reducing their investments in costly head‐to‐head competition. Time delays also engender performance heterogeneity by causing rivals' paths of competitive behavior to diverge. Managerial summary: While competitive actions such as new product launches, geographical expansion, and marketing campaigns require up‐front resource commitments, the potential lift in profits takes time to materialize. This time delay, combined with uncertainty surrounding the outcomes of competitive actions, makes it difficult for managers to learn reliably from previous investment decisions. This results in systematic underinvestment in competitive actions. The severity of the underinvestment grows as the time delay between an investment and its positive results increases. Counterintuitively, however, competitors' collective underinvestment increases profit‐making opportunities. In industries with large time delays, companies that do invest in competitive actions are likely to enjoy high returns on investment. It is also likely that rivals' paths of competitive behavior bifurcate. Together, these mechanisms generate large differences in competitors' profits. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic change and termination of interfirm partnerships

An evolutionary perspective of the resource‐based view is adopted to understand how changes in a partner firm's overall strategy may influence the firm's interfirm partnerships over time. We contend that changes in a partner firm's overall resource deployment strategy and partnering strategy influence the value and uniqueness of partnership resources. These changes alter the competitive advantage associated with partnership resources, affecting the propensity of partnership termination. An event history analysis is employed with 150 joint ventures over the period 1990 to 2001 to examine partnership termination within a longitudinal dataset. With initial partnership conditions controlled for, the results indicate significant influences of various changes in partner firm overall resource deployment strategy and partnering strategy on the propensity of termination. Further, competitor imitative activities are found to increase the propensity of termination as they reduce the uniqueness of partnership resources. This study provides support for an evolutionary perspective of resource value and competitive advantage that incorporates strategic change over time. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The dynamics of wealth,profit, and sustainable advantage

This paper shows how idiosyncratic resources can drive sustained profitability and persistent heterogeneity under competitive conditions. Generic inputs purchased in the market become idiosyncratic resources as the result of firms' investments in customization. Analytically, we show how heterogeneous firms coexist in equilibrium as a function of customization costs. Computationally, we show that sustainable profits can emerge without ‘monopolistic’ imperfections. We consider how capability heterogeneity, resource customization cost, and ease of expansion interact to drive short-run and sustainable profits. Our results illustrate that sustainable profits may represent a small part of the total wealth created over time by a firm or industry, and that changes in factors shaping a sector's evolutionary trajectory may be more important than changes in factors that determine profits' ultimate sustainability. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Value,rareness, competitive advantage,and performance: a conceptual‐level empirical investigation of the resource‐based view of the firm

The resource‐based view of the firm (RBV) hypothesizes that the exploitation of valuable, rare resources and capabilities contributes to a firm's competitive advantage, which in turn contributes to its performance. Despite this notion, few empirical studies test these hypotheses at the conceptual level. In response to this gap, this study empirically examines the relationships between value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance. The results suggest that value and rareness are related to competitive advantage, that competitive advantage is related to performance, and that competitive advantage mediates the rareness‐performance relationship. These findings have important academic and practitioner implications which are then discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

企业核心竞争力与管理优势浅析

企业核心竞争力是指企业所拥有的独特能力和优势。企业竞争能力体现在资本、人才、管理、技术、产品、成本、营销网络等方面的优势，其中，管理优势是核心优势，企业的竞争力归根到底是企业的管理优势。企业拥有的核心竞争力是其他各种优势得以发挥作用的联结点，是其可持续发展的根本。企业核心竞争力的培育在于管理素质，企业核心竞争力的关键在于管理好关键员工，企业核心竞争力的保持离不开战略管理。     

Firm‐specific knowledge resources and competitive advantage: the roles of economic‐ and relationship‐based employee governance mechanisms

The resource‐based view of the firm emphasizes the role of firm‐specific resources, especially firm‐specific knowledge resources, in helping a firm to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, the deployment of firm‐specific knowledge often requires key employees to make specialized human capital investments that are not easily redeployable to other settings. Thus, in the absence of effective safeguards and trust building devices, employees with foresight may be reluctant to make such specialized investments. This study explores both economic‐ and relationship‐based governance mechanisms that might mitigate this underinvestment problem. Effective use of these governance mechanisms enables a firm to obtain greater performance from its efforts to deploy firm‐specific knowledge resources. Empirical results further support these key arguments. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why Do Firms Enter a New Product Market? A Two‐Dimensional Framework for Market Entry Motivation and Behavior

What are the energetic forces that induce established firms to enter new product markets? While most previous research has explained the economic profits expected from a new product market as firms' distinctive motivation for market entry, some recent studies also emphasize interfirm competition and benchmarking activities as another important factor that motivates firms' new market entry. To explain the established firms' diverse new product market entry behaviors, this study presents a two‐dimensional scheme of entry motivation in terms of the degrees of target market profit focus and competitor focus. The first dimension captures the economic motivation of firms' new market entry that ranges from focusing on the direct expected profits from the target market to considering more strategic/indirect benefit incentives. The second dimension captures the degree of firms' external motivation for entry affected by competitors that ranges from independent entry decisions to fully competitor‐oriented entry decisions. Using multiple‐industry survey data, the current study empirically verifies that these two entry motivation dimensions explain a great portion of actual firms' new product market entry behaviors and that they are independent of each other. Subsequently, this study validates that firms' operational size and their environmental factors like perceived technological uncertainty and competitive intensity upon new market entry affect the degrees of the two dimensions of firms' new product market entry motivation. More specifically, large firms less emphasize target‐market profits than small firms, and when perceived technological uncertainty is high, potential market entrants become less target market profit focused but more competitor focused. Under a highly competitive new market condition, firms focus on both target‐market profits and competitors. Based on the analysis of new market entry motivation dimensions, the current study proposes a new typology of established firms' market entry behaviors. The suggested typology represents the four different types of new product market entrants and examines specific characteristics and entry strategies for each type of potential entrants. This entry‐motivation framework should provide a deeper understanding of the backgrounds of entry behaviors and assist firms in developing appropriate entry strategies and in advantageously responding to rival firms' actions with regard to entry.     

Organizational alignment as competitive advantage

In explaining financial performance variance, strategic management researchers and industrial organization economists have emphasized industry factors, market share, generic strategy, and strategic group membership, whereas organizational contingency theorists have emphasized alignments involving environment and internal structure. This study integrates these perspectives, testing the financial performance consequences of organizational alignments, in context with the effects of industry, market share, and strategy. In an empirical study in two manufacturing industries, it is shown that some organizational alignments do produce supernormal profits, independent of the profits produced by traditional industry and strategy variables. The results are consistent with the resource view of the firm: to the extent that alignments result from skill rather than luck, it is reasonable to regard alignment skill as a strategic resource capable of generating economic rents. The article suggests that, by focusing on industry and competitive strategy variables, contemporary industrial organization and strategy research has understated the role of organizational factors in producing sustainable competitive advantage.     

Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study

Total Quality Management (TQM) has become, according to one source, ‘as pervasive a part of business thinking as quarterly financial results,’ and yet TQM's role as a strategic resource remains virtually unexamined in strategic management research. Drawing on the resource approach and other theoretical perspectives, this article examines TQM as a potential source of sustainable competitive advantage, reviews existing empirical evidence, and reports findings from a new empirical study of TQM's performance consequences. The findings suggest that most features generally associated with TQM—such as quality training, process improvement, and benchmarking—do not generally produce advantage, but that certain tacit, behavioral, imperfectly imitable features—such as open culture, employee empowerment, and executive commitment—can produce advantage. The author concludes that these tacit resources, and not TQM tools and techniques, drive TQM success, and that organizations that acquire them can outperform competitors with or without the accompanying TQM ideology.     

Taking industry structuring seriously: A strategic perspective on product differentiation

Given legal impediments to consolidation and collusion, firms often resort to product differentiation to attain market power. This paper provides a formal analysis of product differentiation as a tool for such industry structuring at both the firm and industry level. We examine: how industry structure differs when firms collaborate on their differentiation decisions, and when the profitability of such collaboration is greatest; how an individual firm's differentiation decisions affect subsequent market outcomes under price competition, such as margin, market share, and profit; how mere differentiation differs from a ‘differentiation advantage’; and how changing a firm's differentiation affects its rivals through both positive externalities (by restraining rivalry) and negative externalities (by shifting competitive advantage). Our results have implications for empirical research, strategy theory, and pedagogy.     

Rethinking research methods for the resource‐based perspective: isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage

An exploration of traditional perspectives and contemporary propositions regarding sustainable competitive advantage points to the conclusion that the locus of advantage is located specifically within organizational effects. The key issue emerges that research investigating sources of sustainable competitive advantage must be done not only on organizations but also in organizations. The fallout from this conclusion is, however, that the research methodologies traditionally used in strategy research will not unambiguously uncover these sources of sustainable advantage. Using organizational culture as an example of a possible source of sustainable advantage within a resource‐based paradigm, a four‐step research framework is suggested for isolating these organizational effects. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

It Won't Fit! For Innovative Products,Sometimes That's for the Best

The degree of overlap (i.e., fit) between product development organizations' resources and the product development projects pursued has powerful performance implications. Drawing on organizational learning theory and the resource‐based view, this research conceptualizes and empirically tests the interrelationships between the levels of fit, innovativeness, speed to market, and financial new product performance. After reviewing the research literature relevant to resource fit and new product performance, the level of innovativeness is posited to be an important moderating and mediating factor, which is validated by analysis of data gathered from 279 product developing firms. Technological fit has a negative direct effect on both technological and market innovativeness, while the use of existing marketing resources (i.e., a high degree of marketing fit) positively impacts technological innovativeness. This suggests, consistent with findings from market orientation research, that a deep, long‐held customer understanding can promote technological innovativeness. The moderating hypotheses proposed are also well supported: First, a high degree of marketing fit has a more positive impact on performance for market innovative products (e.g., products which address a new target market or use a nontraditional channel for the firm). Drawing on a deep customer understanding is more critical to performance for market innovative products. Conversely, the benefits of marketing fit are limited where market innovativeness is lacking. Interestingly, the counterpart moderating role of technological innovativeness on technological fit's performance effect is not significant; the level of technological innovativeness does not significantly impact the performance impact of technological fit. There are also significant moderating effects across dimensions. Our results show that the financial benefit of using existing marketing resources is lessened for technologically innovative products. Technological innovations necessitate drastic adaptation of marketing resources (i.e., channel and brand); firms drawing only on existing marketing resources for a technologically innovative new product will incur reduced profit. Similarly, the positive implications of using existing technological resources are limited for products which are highly market innovative. Generally, resource fit is seen to have an (oft‐overlooked) dark side in product development, though several of our findings suggest that marketing resources are more flexible than are technological resources.     

Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox

Resource‐based theory argues that resources must be valuable, rare, inimitable, and lack substitutes to confer competitive advantage. Inimitability is a lynchpin of resource‐based theory and central to understanding the sustainability of competitive advantage. Although scholars recognize a positive relationship between causal ambiguity and inimitability, the relationship among critical resources called competencies, causal ambiguity, and firm performance remains an unresolved conundrum. One perspective suggests that causal ambiguity regarding competencies and performance is necessary among internal and external managers for sustainable competitive advantage because it severely limits imitation. Causal ambiguity, therefore, enhances firm performance. Another view holds that causal ambiguity places a constraint on the transfer and leveraging of these competencies within a firm. In this case, causal ambiguity may adversely influence firm performance. This paper takes a resource‐based view to develop and test hypotheses that relate managers' perceptions of causal ambiguity to their firm's performance. The hypotheses examine relationships between firm performance and (1) causal ambiguity regarding the link between competencies and competitive advantage, and (2) causally ambiguous characteristics of competencies. Research involving 224 executives in 17 organizations provides valuable insights into the relationships between causal ambiguity and firm performance. A model is then developed based on these findings. Particular consideration is given to the differing ways top and middle managers in a firm may experience causal ambiguity and to how these differences may be understood and managed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Firm resources,competitive actions and performance: investigating a mediated model with evidence from the in‐vitro diagnostics industry

Building on the resource‐based view (RBV) and competitive dynamics literatures, this paper proposes that considering resources or actions independently offers an incomplete understanding of the drivers of superior performance. Instead, we hypothesize that resources enable competitive actions and that when these actions leverage the firm's resources, superior performance results. We tested these hypotheses with panelized data on the technological resources and competitive actions of firms in the in‐vitro medical diagnostic substance manufacturing industry. The results provide substantial support for our hypotheses, specifically with respect to mediation. Our theory and results underscore how the integration of the competitive dynamics and RBV literatures can significantly improve our understanding of firm performance. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competitive heterogeneity,cohorts, and persistent advantage

Research summary: Juxtaposing competing theories of whether superior profits endure, this article investigates differences in the rates at which firms' profit advantages persist following a significant regulatory change in the rules governing industry competition. Such a change creates two cohorts of firms, Entrants that lack experience in the industry and Incumbents that competed in the industry before the regulatory shift. The findings show that both cohorts' profit advantages persist, but at different rates: Superior performing Incumbents sustain an advantage longer than superior performing Entrants. This result is counterintuitive since Entrants are not constrained by a legacy of competing under the prior regime. Overall, the findings indicate that stages of a firm's development and of an industry's evolution are critical to understanding how long superior profits persist. Managerial summary: State and federal institutions employ regulations in an attempt to address market failures and to create a stable set of market and nonmarket relationships among relevant actors. A byproduct of this stability is decreased competition, and in turn, reduced incentives for firms to develop efficient operations. One might expect then that deregulation would fundamentally disrupt incumbent firms' abilities to develop and sustain a profit advantage. We find the reverse: Over time, some firms in the Incumbent cohort develop persistent, albeit temporary, profit advantages despite an onslaught of Entrants. Thus, while deregulation shakes out inefficient firms, it may strengthen, rather than threaten the profit trajectories of incumbent firms over time. Advantages developed by superior performing Entrants also endure, but for a shorter duration relative to Incumbents. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Rethinking Rouse and Daellenbach's rethinking: isolating vs. testing for sources of sustainable competitive advantage

In a recent paper, Rouse and Daellenbach (1999) provide a five‐step methodological approach which they feel will cure alleged inadequacies in empirical resource‐based research. We suggest, however, that their methodology can provide only a useful aid for expanding our understanding of potential sustainable competitive advantages but will not allow researchers to effectively verify those hypothesized advantages. Specifically, we argue that Rouse and Daellenbach's methodology is plagued by three major shortcomings: (1) it confuses the important distinction between knowing‐how and knowing‐what; (2) it fails to recognize the importance of observable variables in verifying the sources of sustainable competitive advantage; and (3) it calls for sampling on the dependent variable. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Bayesian operationalization of the resource‐based view

This paper argues that the gap between the theoretical utility and the practical utility of the resource‐based view (RBV) may be narrowed by operationalizing the theory more consistently with Penrose's original framework. The operationalization proposed here is a twofold approach. First, the RBV may be enhanced by the explicit recognition of Penrose's two classes of resources, namely, administrative resources and productive resources. This distinction suggests a focus on the administrative decisions of managers that lead to economic performance. Second, we argue that the RBV is a theory about extraordinary performers or outliers—not averages. Therefore, the statistical methods used in applying the theory must account for individual firm differences, and not be based on means, which statistically neutralize firm differences. We propose a novel Bayesian hierarchical methodology to examine the relationship between administrative decisions and economic performance over time. We develop and explain a measure of competitive advantage that goes beyond comparisons of economic performance. This Bayesian methodology allows us to make meaningful probability statements about specific, individual firms and the effects of the administrative decisions examined in this study. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.