Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal retrospective on six of the key events/experiences that influenced the development of the structure, foundational premises, and models of the resource‐advantage theory of competition.

The paper uses a personal retrospective approach.

The paper finds that six key events influenced the development of resource‐advantage theory: B.J. “Bud” LaLonde emphasizes the works of Alderson; Rob Morgan suggests an article on the resource‐based theory of the firm; Roy Howell suggests a presentation on R‐A theory; Randy Sparks shows a “socialist calculation” article; Kim Boal suggests the Journal of Management Inquiry as a publication outlet; and Bob Phillips discusses his work on “firm effects vs industry effects”. The paper then relates each of the six events to the paths, routes, or procedures that are often proposed as (or reported to be) likely to lead to the development of theories.

By providing the evolutionary history of resource‐advantage theory, the paper provides implications for developing marketing theories.

This paper proposes the “fields and weapons of the competition model applied to business networks” – CAC-Redes (in Portuguese, Campos e Armas da Competição – Redes de negócio), an extension of the fields and weapons of the competition model (CAC) – to study the competition and competitiveness of companies operating in business networks in a competitive environment while integrating organizational competencies, interorganizational ties and company positioning to provide competitive advantage.

CAC-Redes is born from the cross-fertilization process of various theoretical perspectives, namely, industrial organization, traditional view of operational activities and resources, relational view, strategic alignment, transaction cost theory and social perspectives in networks, structured according to systems theory and under the mantle of competitive advantage theory. To discover the structure of existing models of competitiveness in networks, a bibliographic search was conducted in the Scopus database. Quali-quantitative empirical research was undertaken in companies from six different economic sectors through structured questionnaires and personal interviews to understand how companies competed and discover the determining factors of their competitive advantage.

Only seven models of competitiveness in network were found, and their structures and characteristics are quite different from those of CAC-Redes. Empirical research confirms all the hypotheses that support CAC-Redes, which, combined with those of CAC, indicate the CAC-Redes corroboration.

CAC-Redes does not apply to networks without intercompany competition, studies on network governance and corporate strategy formulation.

CAC-Redes is effective in studying complex competitiveness phenomena because it considers multiple influences; provides a process based on qualitative and quantitative variables that increase the probability of formulating successful competitive strategies; simplifies the differentiation of skills from core competencies and determines them; proposes a competitive advantage criterion to select suppliers; creates a unifying language to represent the different strategic specificities of companies, competitors, suppliers, customers and the company environment and provides a library containing 181 weapons (resources) and dozens of interorganizational ties that can be used in empirical studies with other methodologies.

CAC-Redes, due to its originality and peculiarities, theoretically contributes to theory of resources because it dispenses with the assumption, “unique resource, source of competitive advantage”; to relational view because it considers interorganizational relationships as a competence and treats it quali-quantitatively and to core competencies because if the strategy changes, different core competencies will be needed. Furthermore, it is an alternative to the dynamic capabilities perspective, and it transforms the five manufacturing performance objectives into nine for the entire company.

CAC-Redes is an original model because its structure and characteristics comparatively differ from those of existing models, and 14 singularities are detected.

This paper advances an integrative framework on the determinants of competitive advantage in global competition. It coalesces the disparate array of literature on competitive advantage in international management and strategic management. The integrative framework hinges on four general categories of factors – creation and innovation, competition, cooperation, and co‐option – and three generic types of competitive advantages – ownership‐based, access‐based, and proficiency‐based. Specific determinants of competitive advantage are juxtaposed and presented within the proposed framework. Such a framework is expected to enhance out understanding of global competitive advantage.

Aims to examine the issue of industrial strategy (IS), paying particular attention to the case of Britain. Sets out to assess the possibility and nature of an industrial strategy for Britain, in Europe, and within the global scene, taking into account the world we live in as we see it. Accordingly, the perspective is driven and shaped by a quest for a realistic, feasible and sustainable industrial strategy. In order to achieve these objectives, first examines the theoretical arguments behind much of British, and more generally, Western industrial policies. Following this, outlines and assesses British industrial policy post‐Second World War then compares and contrasts British industrial policy with that of Europe, the USA, Japan and the newly industrialized countries. Then examines recent developments in economics and management which may explain the “Far Eastern” miracle, and points to the possibility of a successful, narrowly self‐interested, IS for Europe and Britain, based on the lessons from (new) theory and international experience. To assess what is possible, develops a theoretical framework linking firms in their roles as consumers and/or electors. This hints at the possibilities and limits of feasible policies. All these ignore desirability which, in the author′s view, should be seen in terms of distributional considerations, themselves contributors to sustainability. Accordingly, discusses a desirable industrial strategy for Britain in Europe which accounts for distributional considerations, and goes on to examine its implications for the issue of North‐South convergence. Concludes by pointing to the limitations of the analysis and to directions for developments.

Determining the strategic thrust of the firm, it may be argued, is the principal task of top management. This task is aided by recent theories of business and marketing strategy, including the normative imperatives based on industry factors, resource factors, competences, market orientation, and relationship marketing. Choosing wisely from among the various theories of strategy requires an accurate understanding of the contexts of competition. This article argues that resource‐advantage theory, an evolutionary, disequilibrium‐provoking process theory of competition, provides that understanding. That is, resource‐advantage theory grounds theories of business and marketing strategy.

Resource‐advantage theory is an interdisciplinary, evolutionary, process theory of competition that is proving to be extraordinarily provocative. A General Theory of Competition: Resources, Competences, Productivity, Economic Growth pulls together many of the articles that develop the theory. This article provides a brief overview of resource‐advantage theory, reports on two queries that have been raised by the theory’s critics, responds to the two queries, and extends an invitation to readers.

This paper uses a large‐scale survey of SMEs (1,531 respondents) in the UK to assess the factors associated with their competitive conditions and their competitive advantage. Results appear to confirm that, as SME businesses grow, they develop their strategy to seek specialisation and differentiation of their products and services and diversification of their customer base. However, the paper suggests caution about any government policies based on local intervention. It suggests that policy assisted areas have no association with different local competitive conditions or advantage/disadvantage. Instead, the paper suggests that firms increasingly obtain competitive advantage from developing trading relationships with other regions or countries beyond their own locality. Consequently policy assistance should be tailored closely to the needs of the SME rather than the locality.

Why do nations succeed in particular industries? Why do certain industries prosper in one country, but languish in others? Several recent attempts to address these core questions in the study of geography and strategy are based on the notion of domestic rivalry as the essence of the persistence of competitive advantage of nations. Starting from the claim that rivalry between countries typically implies competition among organizational populations across national boundaries, in this paper we make a first attempt to develop empirical connections between a central problem in international business and the conceptual and analytical categories of corporate demography. Relying on information on the founding of 719 independent motorcycle producers operating in Belgium, Italy and Japan during the period 1898–1993, we build on recent results in organizational ecology to link a selected number of essential but underspecified aspects in current theories of international business to observable patterns of competition within and among organizational populations. The results of the analysis invite a new interpretation of the evolutionary forces that shape the competitive advantage of nations.

The purpose of this paper is to critically investigate the discourse on “competitive advantage”, a concept that has been widely applied in the public higher education sector, but rarely defined and conceptualised.

In order to get some insightful understanding about how “competitive advantage” is actually manifested in the life and activities of public higher education institutions (PHEIs), it is necessary to obtain data about the perceptions held by education practitioners in different sub-sectors and at various job function levels. In total, 73 interviews at 16 Dutch PHEIs were conducted in the period of 2009-2011.

By studying the diversified meanings, 13 elements were identified in constructing the competitive advantages sought by PHEIs, and, more importantly the significance of each element is rated and ranked. Furthermore, this research discovered that the research universities and universities of applied sciences perceive this concept differently; also, the practitioners holding different job functions gave divergent meanings to this term. The clarification of this container concept “competitive advantage” leads to the conclusion that the business way of defining “competitive advantage” should be critically reviewed and verified in the context of the public higher education sector.

This study used just two parameters for the selection of individual respondents: their job function and the length of their working experience. Further studies that adopt different selection parameters are, therefore, encouraged as offering the potential to further enrich our knowledge about how competitive advantage is perceived and put into practice. It is hoped that the findings from this research offer some guidance in developing a framework for such further studies.

The sectorial differences revealed by this study can help research universities and universities of applied sciences design their competitive strategies more suitable with their specific characteristics. The job function level differences shown by the research findings can help institutions to identify and close the gaps between the central level and faculty level in their strategic planning and implementation.

The clarification of the container concept “competitive advantage” is unique in the current educational management literature, particularly in both qualitative and quantitative ways. The comparisons between two institutional types and two job function levels may help PHEIs to effectively design competitive strategies according to their specific institutional characteristics and by understanding the gaps between the central and faculty level.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that conceptual frameworks developed from a general theory of competition, i.e. resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory, can facilitate managerial action.

After a brief overview of resource‐advantage (R‐A) theory, five conceptual frameworks are developed and offered for the purposes of managerial action.

This paper identifies several conceptual frameworks and after noting that conceptual frameworks that do not have positive theoretical foundations may not be as useful as those that do, develops five conceptual frameworks that are based on R‐A theory.

The conceptual frameworks developed in this paper have great potential for facilitating managerial action.

Conceptual frameworks that have positive theoretical foundations can be very useful for practitioners. In fact, the frameworks proposed in this paper can replace frameworks that are currently in use for managerial action.