See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/45072537

Resource Based View (RBV) of Competitive Advantages: Importance, Issues and

Implications

Article · January 2009

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
44 59,693

1 author:

Dr. Pankaj M. Madhani

Management Consultant
253 PUBLICATIONS 1,634 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Pankaj M. Madhani on 19 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Resource Based View (RBV) of Competitive Advantages: Importance, Issues
and Implications

Pankaj M. Madhani
pmadhani@iit.edu

Associate Dean & Professor

ICFAI Business School (IBS)

Introduction
Resource based view (RBV) analyze and interpret resources of the organizations to understand
how organizations achieve sustainable competitive advantage. The RBV focuses on the concept
of difficult-to- imitate attributes of the firm as sources of superior performance and competitive
advantage (Barney, 1986; Hamel & Prahalad, 1996). Resources that cannot be easily transferred
or purchased, that require an extended learning curve or a major change in the organization
climate and culture, are more likely to be unique to the organization and, therefore, more difficult
to imitate by competitors. According to Conner (1991), performance variance between firms
depends on its possession of unique inputs and capabilities. Following example explains
applicability of RBV:

Example
Honda, the world’s largest engine manufacturer is following a RBV strategy. Honda built its
business strategy around the firm’s strength, capability and expertise in building petrol based
engines. Honda initially started with small clip-on engines for bicycles then moved to two
wheelers such as scooters and motorbikes, marine engines, generators, lawn and garden
equipment, and cars (Honda and Acura automobiles) and even jet planes. Each of these products
competes in quite different product verticals, but leverages a unique resource and capability of
Honda to build world class petrol based engines.

Foundation of Resource Based View

The RBV takes an ‘inside-out’ view or firm specific perspective on why organizations succeed
or fail in the market place (Dicksen, 1996). Resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable and non
substitutable (Barney, 1991) make it possible for businesses to develop and maintain competitive
advantages, to utilize these resources and competitive advantages for superior performance
(Collis & Montgomery, 1995; Grant, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). According to RBV, an
organization can be considered as a collection of physical resources, human resources and
organizational resources (Barney, 1991; Amit & Shoemaker, 1993). Resources of organizations
that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and imperfectly substitutable are main source of
sustainable competitive advantage for sustained superior performance (Barney, 1991).

Madhani, P. M. (2009). “Resource Based View (RBV) of Competitive Advantages: Importance,

Issues and Implications”, KHOJ Journal of Indian Management Research and Practices, Vol. 1,
No. 2, pp. 2-12.

1
A resource must fulfill ‘VRIN’ criteria in order to provide competitive advantage and sustainable
performance. A ‘VRIN’ criterion is explained below:

1. Valuable (V): Resources are valuable if it provides strategic value to the firm. Resources
provide value if it helps firms in exploiting market opportunities or helps in reducing
market threats. There is no advantage of possessing a resource if it does not add or
enhance value of the firm;

2. Rare (R): Resources must be difficult to find among the existing and potential
competitors of the firm. Hence resources must be rare or unique to offer competitive
advantages. Resources that are possessed by a several firms in the market place cannot
provide competitive advantage, as they can not design and execute a unique business
strategy in comparison with other competitors;

3. Imperfect imitability (I): Imperfect imitability means making copy or imitate the
resources will not be feasible. Bottlenecks for imperfect imitability can be many viz.
difficulties in acquiring resource, ambiguous relationship between capability and
competitive advantage or complexity of resources. Resources can be basis of sustained
competitive advantage only if firms that do not hold these resources cannot acquire them;

4. Non-substitutability (N): Non-substitutability of resources implies that resources can’t be

substituted by another alternative resource. Here, competitor can’t achieve same
performance by replacing resources with other alternative resources.

According to Barney (1986), valuable resource ‘must enable a firm to do things and behave in
ways that lead to high sales, low costs, high margins, or in others ways add financial value to the
firm. Barney (1991) also emphasized that ‘resources are valuable when they enable a firm to
conceive of or implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness’. RBV helps
managers of firms to understand why competences can be perceived as a firms’ most important
asset and, at the same time, to appreciate how those assets can be used to improve business
performance. RBV of the firm accepts that attributes related to past experiences, organizational
culture and competences are critical for the success of the firm (Campbell & Luchs, 1997; Hamel
& Prahalad, 1996). Table 1 provides brief outline of prior work on RBV.

Table 1: Prior work on the RBV

Authors (Year) Major Contribution

Penrose (1959) Emphasizes the internal resources of a firm. A

firm’s growth is based on a firm’s resources and
limited by managerial resources

Andrews (1971) Emphases management of internal resources

2
Lippman & Rumelt (1982) Sustained competitive advantage results from
rich connections between uniqueness and causal
ambiguity

Wernerfelt (1984) Firms as bundles of resources

Rumelt (1984) Strategic theory of the firm based on the idea of

firms as resource bundles

Barney (1986) Characteristics of the factors market determine

possibilities for a firm to earn rents

Rumelt (1987) Firms as rent-seekers. The importance of

isolating mechanisms to earn rents

Rumelt (1987), Dierickx & Cool Summary article on imitability barriers (e.g.,
(1989) causal ambiguity and isolating mechanisms like
asset interconnectedness, asset stock
efficiencies, etc.) that impede (or make very
costly) imitation from other competitors

Day & Wensley (1988), Aaker Strategic formulation models that have firm
(1989), Grant (1991), Wernerfelt resources as the central concept and as the
(1989) sources of sustainable competitive advantage

Prahalad & Hamel (1990) Core-competencies as the drivers of corporate

strategy and diversification. Business should
exploit and leverage core competencies.
Corporations should diversify in related
businesses which can make use and enhance the
core competences of the organization

Hansen & Wernerfelt (1989), Empirical studies that support the hypothesis
Rumelt (1991) that firm-specific resources or organizational
factors are more important than industry
variables for explaining firm superior
performance

Barney (1991) Key strategic resources can be sources of

strategic competitive advantage if they are
scarce, difficult to imitate, non-substitutable,
and valuable

3
 Conner (1991) Comparison of the resource based theory of the
firm with other strategic approaches derived
from economics. Clarification of assumptions
of the resource based theory and its implication
for rent earning strategies

Peteraf (1993) An integrative resource based framework for

strategic competitive advantage. Proposes that
firms obtain superior performance, by earning
rents from scarce and efficient resources and/or
form market power in the product markets

Day (1994) Capabilities framework of strategic competitive

advantage. Distinguishes between outside-in,
spanning and inside-out capabilities

Collis & Montgomery (1995) Managerially-oriented review of the RBV

Grant (1996) Knowledge based view develops considering

knowledge as the key or strategic asset of firms

Teece, Pisano, & Shuen (1997) Dynamic capabilities as sources of competitive

advantage

(Source: Adapted from Olavarrieta & Ellinger, 1997; Mahoney, 2004)

Resource Based View: Types of Resources and Capabilities

According to RBV, resources can be broadly defined to include assets, organizational processes,
firm attributes, information, or knowledge controlled by the firm which can be used to conceive
of and implement their strategies (Learned, Christensen, Andrews, & Guth, 1969; Daft, 1983;
Barney, 1991; Mata et al., 1995). Examples of resources are brand names, technological abilities,
efficient procedures, among others (Wernerfelt, 1984; Olavarrieta & Ellinger, 1997; Spanos &
Lioukas, 2001). Other researchers have classified different resources as tangible and intangible
(Itami & Roehl, 1987; Hall, 1992; Hall, 1993). When identifying resources, several researchers
have grouped specific types of resources that may enable firms to conceive and implement value
creating business strategies (e.g., Hitt & Ireland, 1985; Grant, 1991; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993;
Black & Boal, 1994; Bogaert, Maertens, & Van Cauwenbergh, 1994; Wade & Hulland, 2004).

Barney (1991) categorises three types of resources:

1. Physical capital resources (physical, technological, plant and equipment),
2. Human capital resources (training, experience, insights) and
3. Organizational capital resources (formal structure).

Brumagim (1994) presents a hierarchy of resources with four different levels of corporate
resources;

4
 1. Production/maintenance resources (considered the most basic or lowest level),
2. Administrative resources,
3. Organizational learning resources, and
4. Strategic vision resources (considered the most advanced or the highest level).

All firms possess a wide spectrum of resources and capabilities. For better understanding of
resources it is necessary to distinguish such varied resources. One useful approach for such
classification is to group resources in two categories viz. tangible resources and intangible
resources (Table 2).

Table 2: Types of Resources and Capabilities

Tangible resources Examples

and capabilities
Financial - Ability to generate internal funds
- Ability to raise external capital
Physical - Location of plants, machines, offices, and their
geographic locations
- Access to raw materials and distribution channels
Technological - Possession of patents, trademarks,
copyrights, and trade secrets
Organizational - Formal planning, command, and control systems
- Integrated management information systems
Intangible resources Examples
and capabilities
Human - Managerial talents
- Organizational culture
Innovation - Research and development (R & D) capabilities to
innovate new product, process and services
- Capacities for organizational innovation and change
Reputational - Perceptions of product quality, durability, and reliability
among customers
- Successful product branding and positioning with satisfied
and loyal customer base
- Reputation as a good employer
- Reputation as a socially responsible corporate citizen

(Sources: Adapted from (1) J. Barney, 1991, Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,
Journal of Management, 17: 101; (2) R. Hall, 1992, The strategic analysis of intangible resources,
Strategic Management Journal, 13: 135-144.)

5
Identification of Resources and Capabilities: A Strategy for Sustainable Competitive
Advantages
The RBV has been useful in identifying the basis by which the resources and capabilities of a
firm serve as sources of sustained competitive advantage (e.g., Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991;
Peteraf, 1993). As such, resources and capabilities are fundamental underpinnings of any source
of advantage (Rumelt, Schendel, & Teece, 1991). Valuable resources are termed strategic assets
(Barney, 1991; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). The RBV asserts that ownership and control of
strategic assets determines which organizations will earn superior profits and enjoy a position of
competitive advantage over others. Three major questions are asked of resources to identify the
impact they have:

1. Is the resource or capability valuable?

2. Is it heterogeneously distributed across competing firms?
3. Is it imperfectly mobile?

As shown in Figure 1, it is only when the three questions are confirmed that a sustained
competitive advantage is likely to be gained.

6
 Is a resource
or capability
valuable?

No
Yes

Is it heterogeneously
distributed across
competing firms?

Yes No Competitive
Disadvantage

Is it
imperfectly
mobile?

No Competitive
Yes Parity

Sustained Temporary
Competitive Competitive
Advantage Advantage

(Source: Adapted from Mata et al., 1995)

Figure 1: Identification of Resources and Capabilities

The question of a resource’s value is generally confirmed in two ways. First, if a resource is used
to reduce a firm’s cost it can be seen as valuable (low cost resources). Second, if a resource is
used to increase a firm’s revenue it can be seen as valuable (differentiated resources). As such,
valuable resources may be used to implement new strategies to improve efficiency and
effectiveness (Barney, 1991), improve customer satisfaction (Bogner & Thomas, 1994; Verdin &
Williamson, 1994), or reduce cost (in relation to competitors) (Barney, 1986; Peteraf, 1993). In
essence, a resource is valuable if it helps an organization to improve its performance relative to
their competitors. If the resource meets these conditions the second question is examined. If not,
and the resource is exploited, at worst, a competitive disadvantage may be gained – this is
because the resource is not valuable to the organization.

7
The second question regarding the distribution of a resource examines whether the given
valuable resource is freely available. If the resource is freely available to all firms, then a
competitive parity may be gained, allowing the firm to have the same resources as its
competitors. However, if it is not freely available (heterogeneously distributed), then the
resource may be a source of competitive advantage (given the third question). While some firms
may enjoy resource based advantages (due to their resource base) others will be in a position of
resource based disadvantage (Michalisin et al., 1997). Put another way, the resource
heterogeneity implies that firms have varying capabilities. Therefore, firms with marginal
resources can expect to breakeven, while firms with superior resources should expect to earn
rents (Peteraf, 1993). The differences in firm resource endowments can be attributed to several
factors: the time the firm enters the marketplace, different sets of knowledge, products and
systems of learning, as well as decision made over time (Helfat, 2000).

The third and final question measures the degree of competitive advantage which may be gained
from the given resource. This is achieved by questioning the mobility or inimitability of a
resource. If the resource is perfectly mobile then the resource is likely to be only a source of
temporary competitive advantage, at best (Mata et al., 1995). This temporary nature is attributed
to the advantage because the resource could, due to its mobile nature, change hands. Michalisin
et al. (1997) states that since a firm’s advantage is based on a firm having strategic assets that are
superior to one’s competitors, therefore, the ability to sustain the advantage is a function of the
heterogeneity of such resources.

Barney (1991) defines sustained competitive advantage as a non-duplicatable advantage. This

follows from Lippman & Rumelt’s (1982) and Rumelt’s (1984) definitions that outline a
sustained competitive advantage as an advantage that continues to hold after efforts of others to
duplicate the advantage have ceased (Barney, 1991). Barney’s (1991) definition of sustained
competitive advantage does not mean it will last forever. Rather, it suggests that it will not be
competed away or easily duplicated by the efforts of others (Barney, 1991).

Barney states that sustained advantages may be challenged when unanticipated changes in the
economic structure of an industry occur. Such unanticipated changes therefore, can make what
was a source of sustained advantage no longer a source of advantage. Rumelt & Wensley (1981),
and Barney (1997) call these unanticipated changes ‘Schumpeterian Shocks’. Therefore, a firm
enjoying a sustained competitive advantage when faced with a Schumpeterian Shock may
experience a major shift in the nature of competition and any sources of sustained competitive
advantage may be nullified. A sustained competitive advantage may only be made when
resources are strategic and valuable, are heterogeneously distributed and imperfectly mobile and
firms should sustain the advantage notwithstanding periods of Schumpeterian Shock.

Resource Based View (RBV) Vs Market Based View (MBV)

The resource based view (RBV) is a way of viewing the firm and consecutively of imminent
strategy. The resource based view (RBV) was popularized by Hamel & Prahalad in their book
‘Competing for the Future’ (1996). RBV considers the firm as a bundle of resources. These
resources, and the way that they are combined, make firms different from one another and in turn
allow a firm gain competitive advantage. This concept of RBV is quite different from the
traditional Market Based View (MBV). According to MBV perspective, firms are considered as

8
fairly homogenous and driving force for market competition is branding and positioning efforts
of competing firms. Further, according to MBV, identifying alternative market as characterized
by Michael Porter’s five forces model is major strategic issue. MBV does not take into account
whether firm is in position to exploit available market opportunity i.e. whether firms have
enough resource and capabilities to compete in the market place.

RBV in Changing Environment: Dynamic Capabilities

As market is dynamic, firm’s resources also need to change over a period of time to make them
relevant to changing market condition. This perspective is based on the dynamic capabilities and
is outcome of RBV (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). Dynamic capabilities have been defined as
firm’s processes that use resources specifically the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain, and
release resources. While RBV primarily concentrates on types of resources and capabilities for
its strategic importance, the dynamic capability concentrates on how these resources and
capabilities need to change or update over a period of time to keep their relevance in the
changing market place.

The RBV considered resources and competencies as static that can be pointed as stationary at
certain time frame work and will remain so over a period of time also. The focal point is that
when firms are having resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable and non substitutable, it
enables firms to develop value enhancing strategies that are not easily copied by competing firms
(Barney, 1991; Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984). However in this era
of dynamic economy, there is need for firms to build up new capabilities or competencies for
sustaining such competitive advantage. (Teece, Pisano & Schuen, 1997). Dynamic capabilities
thus are the organizational processes or strategic routines by which firms develops new
configuration for updating resources as per market requirement (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Such dynamic capabilities require that organizations establish processes that enable them to
change their routines, services, products, and even markets over time.

9
 Static

Market Resource
Based Based
View View
Degree of Change

Market Dynamic
Forces Capabilities

Dynamic

Market Firm
Unit of Analysis

(Source: Model Developed by Author)

Figure 2: Characteristics of RBV, MBV and Dynamic Capabilities

The RBV, MBV and dynamic capabilities perspective all focus on different unit of analysis and
degree of change as shown in Figure 1. Initially to cope up with market forces, MBV was
conceptualized, subsequently focus shifted to RBV. Finally, to respond to challenges of ever
changing globalized world, concept of Dynamic Capabilities became popular. This transition is
shown by direction of arrow in Figure 2.

The dynamic capabilities approach, examines competitive advantage in the globalized

environment of rapid market change. In such dynamic marketplaces, where the competitive
environment is rapidly changing, managers of firms need to develop capabilities embedded in the
firm which are based on sequences of path dependant learning in order to achieve periods of
competitive advantage (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Miller, 2003). Dynamic
capabilities are strategic and organizational processes like product development and strategic
decision making that create value for firms by manipulating resources inherent with firms
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Winter (2003) views dynamic capabilities as process of extending,
modifying, or creating new capabilities. The key differential between ordinary capabilities and
those that are dynamic is that dynamic capabilities are linked with change and more particularly,
changing the resource base of a firm (Collis, 1994; Winter, 2003).

The dynamic capabilities approach is especially relevant today when global competitive forces
are changing landscapes of industries. In this globalized environment ways of achieving
competitive advantage are changing fast. As such, firms in this marketplace need to have timely
strategies, flexible infrastructures, and an ability to utilize resources and capabilities in coupled
and innovate ways (Teece et al., 1997). Therefore, in contrast to traditional RBV assumptions
competitive advantages gained in the dynamic marketplace may be based on capabilities, which

10
have greater homogeneity and substitutability across firms (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Competitive advantages achieved through dynamic capabilities are therefore based on the ability
to change the resource base of the firm. This means dynamic capabilities alter resource bases by
creating, integrating, recombining, and releasing resources (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).

Dynamic capabilities have been tightly coupled with a dynamic or rapidly changing environment
(Teece et al., 1997; Sher & Lee, 2004). However, Zahra et al. (2006) also discuss the
applicability of such capabilities in non dynamic marketplaces and suggest that while
organizations which operate in more dynamic marketplaces would gain greater value from
dynamic capabilities; it does not exclude organizations in slower to change marketplaces from
gaining value from dynamic capabilities.

Limitations of the RBV

Limitations of the RBV can be grouped into following three main areas1:

1. The vagueness of terminology associated with the RBV,

2. The tautological nature of some of the views underlying assumptions,
3. Methodological issues.

Vagueness of Terminology
The lack of commonality of terms with RBV research has received a lot of criticism in the
literature (e.g., Foss, 1998; Williamson, 1999; Fahy, 2000; Priem & Butler, 2001; Montealegre,
2002; Rugman & Verbeke, 2002; Foss & Knudsen, 2003; Hoopes et al., 2003; Wade & Hulland,
2004). Collis (1994) and others (e.g., Coates & McDermott, 2002; Ray et al., 2004) describe the
number of definitions as vast. The use of different terminology to explain results of RBV studies
makes it very difficult to compare the results of various studies. For example, while some
researchers outline distinct meanings for the core terms; resources, competencies, and
capabilities (e.g., Helfat & Peteraf, 2003), other researchers use the terms interchangeably (e.g.,
Ray et al., 2004). Nanda (1996) suggests that the lack of commonality of terms limits the
usefulness of results of RBV research to strategic thinking. Conner comments that since
everything in a firm may be seen as a resource ‘resources lose (their) explanatory power’ (1991,
p 145). Similarly, Hax and Wilde (2001) suggest a significant limitation of RBV research is the
vagueness of the theory.

Tautological Nature
Another significant assessment of the RBV is that the view is essentially a tautology (Porter,
1991; Foss, Knudsen, & Montgomery, 1995; Mosakowski & McKelvey, 1997; Priem & Butler,
2001; Bromiley & Fleming, 2002) in nature. Porter claims that ‘at its worst, the resource based
view is circular’ (1991). The researchers also challenge the premise of the RBV suggesting that
the view “seems to assume what it seeks to explain” (Hoopes et al., 2003). Furthermore, the
researchers posit that the lack of clarity about core aspects of the RBV impede the development
of theory and fruitful debate.

1
Karyn Chri S Tine Rastrick, http://adt.waikato.ac.nz/uploads/approved/adt-uow20080115.215153/public/04c..

11
Methodological Issues
Each of the studies of resources and firm performance vary substantially in terms of the
methodology employed and the way the RBV research is designed. Rouse & Daellenbach (1999)
question the strong bias towards quantitative research methods suggesting that such a
methodology is not appropriate for RBV research in general. The researchers suggest that the
nature of advantages in organizations should be firm based and complex and, as such, qualitative
and field based methodologies are much appropriate. Chan (2000) supports this position
suggesting that the field of research may not be fully understood until more qualitative
contributions are added to the conversation.

Conclusion
The RBV deals with competitive business environment faced by firms but take an inside-out
approach i.e. it starts with analysis of firm’s internal environment. As such RBV is often
considered as an alternate to Porter’s five force model. The RBV emphasizes internal resources
and capabilities of firm in formulating strategy to achieve sustainable competitive advantages in
the market place. Internal resources and capabilities determine strategic choices made by firms
while competing in its external business environment. Firm’s abilities also allow some firms to
add value in customer value chain, develop new products or expand in new market place. When
firm’s capabilities are considered as paramount in the creation of competitive advantages, it will
focus on reconfiguration of value chain activities. This is necessary as it provides opportunity to
identify the capabilities within value chain activities which provide it with competitive
advantages. The RBV draws upon the resources and capabilities that reside within the
organizations in order to develop sustainable competitive advantages. Resources may be
considered as inputs that enable firms to carry out its activities.

According to RBV, not all the resources of firm will be strategic resources and hence sources of
competitive advantage. Competitive advantage occurs only when there is a situation of resource
heterogeneity (different resources across firms) and resource immobility (the inability of
competing firms to obtain resources from other firms). If the resource is not perfectly mobile (i.e.,
the resource is not free to move between firms, or if a firm without a resource faces a
considerable cost burden in developing, acquiring or using it, that a firm already using it does
not), then the resource is likely to be a source of sustained competitive advantage. If a resource is
imitated or substituted then any advantages gained may be short lived. In short, the more mobile
a resource is, the less sustained the advantage gained from that resource will be. In this current
era of fast changing globalized world, if an organization is able to change swiftly and be more
alert to changes in the competitive market, then they are more likely to gain and sustain
competitive advantage.

12
 REFERENCES

1. Aaker, D. A. (1989), “Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive
advantage”, California Management Review, 31(2), pp. 91-106.
2. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”,
Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 33-46.
3. Andrews, K. R. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
4. Barney, J. B. (1986), “Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy”,
Management Science, 32(10), pp. 1231-1242.
5. Barney, J. B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, 17(1), pp. 99-121.
6. Barney, J. B. (1997), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
7. Black, J. A., & Boal, K. (1994), “Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to
sustainable competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 131-148.
8. Bogaert, I., Maertens, R., & Van Cauwenbergh, A. (1994), “Strategy as a situational
puzzle: The fit of components” In G. Hamel & A. Heene (Eds.), Competence-Based
Competition. Chichester: John Wiley.
9. Bogner, W. C., & Thomas, H. (1994), “Core competence and competitive advantage: A
model and illustrative evidence from the pharmaceutical industry”, In G. Hamel & Heene
(Eds.), Competence-based competition (pp. 111-147). New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
10. Bromiley, P., & Fleming, L. (2002), “The resource-based view of strategy: a behavioral
critique”, In M. Augier & M. J. G (Eds.), In Change, Choice and Organisation: Essays in
Memory of Richard M Cyert (pp. 319-336). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
11. Brumagim, A. L. (1994), “A hierarchy of corporate resources”, Advances in Strategic
Management, 10A, pp. 81-112.
12. Campbell, A. and Luchs, K. (1997), “Understanding competencies” In Campbell, A. and
Luchs, K. (Eds), CoreCompetency-based Strategy, Thomson, London.
13. Chan, Y. E. (2000), “IT value: The great divide between qualitative and quantitative and
individual and organizational measures”, Journal of Management Information
Systems,16(4), pp. 225-261.
14. Coates, T. T., & McDermott, C. M. (2002), “An exploratory analysis of new
competencies: A resource based view perspective”, Journal of Operations Management,
20, pp. 435-450.
15. Collis, D. J. (1994), “Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities?”,
Strategic management Journal, 15, pp.143-152.
16. Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995), “Competing on resources: Strategy in the
1990s”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 118-128.
17. Conner, K. (1991), “Historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of
thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm?”
Journal of Management, 17(1), pp.121–154.
18. Conner, K. and Prahalad, C. (1996), “A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge
versus opportunism”, Organization Science, 7(5), pp. 477-501.
19. Daft, R. (1983), Organizational Theory and Design. New York: West.

13
20. Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing
competitive superiority”, Journal of Marketing, 52, pp. 1-20.
21. Day, G. S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), pp. 37-52.
22. Dicksen, P. R. (1996), “The static and dynamic mechanics of competitive theory”,
Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), pp. 102–106.
23. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of
competitive advantage”, Management Science, 35(12), pp. 1504-1512.
24. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: What are they?”,
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), pp. 1105-1121.
25. Fahy, J. (2000), “The resource-based view of the firm: Some stumbling-blocks on the
road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, 24, pp. 94-104.
26. Foss, N. J. (1998), “The resource-based perspective: An assessment and diagnosis of
problems”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14, pp. 113-149.
27. Foss, N. J., Knudsen, C., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995), “An exploration of common
ground: integrating evolutionary and strategic theories of the firm”, In C. A. Montgomery
(Ed.), Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis (pp.
1-18). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
28. Foss, N. J., & Knudsen, T. (2003), “The resource-based tangle: Towards a sustainable
explanation of competitive advantage”, Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, pp.
291-307.
29. Grant, R. M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage:
Implications for strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Spring, pp. 114-
135.
30. Grant, R. M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, 17(winter), pp. 109-122.
31. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management
Journal, 13, pp. 135-144.
32. Hall, R. (1993), “A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to
sustainable competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 607-618.
33. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School
Press, Paperback edition, Boston (Massachusetts).
34. Hansen, G. S., & Wernerfelt, B. (1989), “Determinants of firm performance: The
relative importance of economic and organizational factors”, Strategic Management
Journal, 10, pp. 399-411.
35. Hax, A. C., & Wilde, D. L. I. (2001), The Delta Project: Discovering New Sources of
Profitability in a Networked Economy. New York, NY: Palgrave.
36. Helfat, C. E. (2000), “Guest editor's introduction to the special issue: The evolution of
firm capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), pp. 955-959.
37. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003), “The dynamic resource-based view: capability
lifecycles”, Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), pp. 997-1010.
38. Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (1985), “Corporate distinctive competiencies, strategy,
industry and performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 6, pp. 273-293.
39. Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003), “Guest editors' introduction to the
special issue: Why is there a resource-based view? Towards a theory of competitive

14
 heterogeneity”, Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), pp. 559-902.
40. Itami, H., & Roehl, T. (1987), Mobilizing Invisible Assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
41. Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R., & Guth, W. (1969), Business Policy.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
42. Lippman, S., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982), “Uncertain imitability: An analysis of inter-firm
differences in efficiency under competition”, Bell Journal of Economics, 13, pp. 418-438.
43. Mahoney, J. T. (2004), Economic Foundations of Strategy: Sage Publications, Inc
44. Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L., & Barney, J. B. (1995), “Information technology and
sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, December,
pp. 487-505.
45. Michalisin, M., Smith, R., & Kline, D. M. (1997), “In search of strategic assets”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(4), pp. 360-338.
46. Miller, D. (2003), “An asymmetry-based view of advantage: towards an attainable
Sustainability”, Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), pp. 961-976.
47. Montealegre, R. (2002), “A process model of capability development: Lessons from the
electronic commerce strategy at Bolsa de Valores de Guayaquil”, Organization Science,
13(5), pp. 514-531.
48. Mosakowski, E., & McKelvey, B. (1997), “Predicting rent generation in
competencebased competition”, In A. Heene & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Competence-based
Strategic Management (pp. 65-85). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
49. Nanda, A. (1996), “Resources, capabilities and competencies”, In B. Boingeon & A.
Edmondson (Eds.), Organisational Learning and Competitive Advantage. London: Sage.
50. Olavarrieta, S., & Ellinger, A. E. (1997), “Resource-based theory and strategic logistics
research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
27(9/10), pp. 559-587.
51. Penrose, E. T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
52. Peteraf, M. A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based
view”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 179-191.
53. Porter, M. E. (1991), “Towards a dynamic theory of strategy”, Strategic Management
Journal, 12(1), pp. 95-117.
54. Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard
Business Review, May/Jun, pp. 79-91.
55. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001), “Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective
for strategic management research?”, Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp. 22-40.
56. Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004), “Capabilities, business processes, and
competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the
resource-based view”, Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), pp. 23-37.
57. Rouse, M. J., & Daellenbach, U. S. (1999), “Rethinking research methods for the
resource-based perspective: Isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage”,
Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 487-497.
58. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2002), “Edith Penrose's contribution to the resource
based view of strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), pp. 769-
780.

15
 59. Rumelt, R. P. (1984), “Towards a strategic theory of the firm”, In R. B. Lam (Ed.),
Competitive Strategic Management (pp. 566-570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
60. Rumelt, R. P. (1987), “Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship”, In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The
Competitive Challenge (pp. 137-158). New York: Harper & Row.
61. Rumelt, R. P. (1991), “How much does industry matter?”, Strategic Management Journal,
12(3), pp. 167-185.
62. Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. (1991), “Strategic management and
Economics”, Strategic Management Journal, 12(Special Issue), pp. 5-30.
63. Rumelt, R. P., & Wensley, R. (1981), In Search of the Market Share Effect. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
64. Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004), “Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing
dynamic capabilities through knowledge management”, Information and Management,
41, pp. 933-945.
65. Spanos, Y. E., & Lioukas, S. (2001), “An examination into the causal logic of rent
generation: Contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource based
perspective”, Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 907-934.
66. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic
Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509-534.
67. Verdin, P. J., & Williamson, P. J. (1994), “Core competencies, competitive advantage
and market analysis: Forging the links”, In G. Hamel & A. Heene (Eds.), Competence
Based Competition (pp. 77-110). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
68. Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004), “Review: the resource-based view and information
systems research: review extension, and suggestions for future research”, MIS Quarterly,
28(1), pp. 107-142.
69. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management
Journal,5, pp. 171-180.
70. Wernerfelt, N. (1989), “From critical resources to corporate strategy”, Journal of General
Management,14, pp. 4-12.
71. Williamson, O. E. (1999), “Strategic research: Governance and competence
Perspectives”, Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp. 1087-1108.
72. Winter, S. G. (2003), “Understanding dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management
Journal,24(10), pp. 991-995.
73. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and dynamic
capabilities: a review, model and research agenda”, Journal of Management Studies,
43(4), pp. 917-955.

16

View publication stats