Download Comparing Resource-Based and Knowledge-Based Perspectives of Firms and more Assignments Logic in PDF only on Docsity!
European Research Studies, Volume XII, Issue (3), 2009
A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the Resource-Based
Perspective and the Knowledge-Based View
Nikolaos G. Theriou1 a Vassilis Aggelidis^2 Georgios N. Theriou^2 (^1) Department of Business Administration, Kavala Institute of Technology, Kavala, Greece (^2) Department of Production & Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the two most important perspectives of the firm, the RBV and the KBV, by examining the relative impact of firm- specific assets and knowledge capabilities on the firm’s competitive advantage. A composite model is proposed which elaborates upon both perspectives causal logic with respect to the conditions relevant for the firm success.
Key words: resource-based view, knowledge-based view, knowledge management.
Introduction
The dominant paradigms in the field of strategic management during the 1980s and 1990s were the competitive forces approach (Porter 1980) and the resource-based perspective (Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1984; Teece, 1984; Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). The former emphasizes the actions a firm can take to earn economic rents by creating privileged market or industry positions against competitive forces. The latter emphasizes building competitive advantage through capturing economic rents stemming from fundamental firm-level efficiency advantages. Although there are apparent conflicting ideas between these two paradigms, in reality both can co-exist and shape actual firm behaviour (Spanos and Loukas, 2001). In fact, according to Wernerfelt (1984), Porter’s framework and the resource- based approach constitute the two sides of the same coin. This view about the complementarity-compatibility of these two approaches in explaining a firm’s performance was theoretically recognized (Barney and Zajac, 1994; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Peteraf, 1993, Barney, 1992; Barney and Griffin, 1992; Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Conner, 1991) and empirically tested (Schmalensee, 1985; Hansen and Wernerfelt, 1989; Rumelt, 1991; McGahan and Porter, 1997; Mauri and Michaels, 1998; Spanos and Loukas, 2001) by many researchers.
a (^) Correspondence to: N. G. Theriou, Kavala Institute of Technology, Agios Loukas, Kavala
65404, Greece, email: [email protected].
178 European Research Studies, Volume XII, Issue (3), 2009
In recent years many studies on the status, evolution, and/or trends of the resource-based view (RBV) have been published (Barney, 2001a, 2001b; Mahoney, 2001; Makadok, 2001; Priem and Butler, 2001; Phelan and Lewin, 2000; Hoskisson et al., 1999; Williamson, 1999). One of the most recent studies (Acedo, Barroso and Galan, 2006), adopting the bibliometric methodology (Zitt and Bassecoulard, 1996; Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau, 2003), analyzes the so called resource-based theory (RBT)’s heterogeneity and identifies three main trends coexisting within it: the resource-based view (RBV) (e.g., Barney, 1991 and Wernerfelt, 1984), including some representative works of the dynamic capability perspective (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997), the knowledge-based view (KBV) (e.g., Kogut and Zander, 1992 and Grant, 1996a) and the relational view (RV) (e.g., Dyer, 1996). However, none of these studies has empirically tested the degree of compatibility or complementarity between those different approaches. The present study attempts to construct a composite theoretical framework consisting of the two most common and influential perspectives, the RBV and the KBV, that will easy the empirical testing of these two approaches in the future with real data. The following section presents the theoretical background of the two perspectives with respect to sustainable competitive advantage as well as the rationale for the development of a composite model. Finally, section three describes and presents the model development and hypotheses and section four conclude the paper.
Theoretical background
RBV perspective
The resource-based view comprises a rising and dominant area of the strategy
literature which addresses the question of an organization’s identity and it is
principally concerned with the source and nature of strategic capabilities. The
resource-based perspective has an intra-organisational focus and argues that
performance is a result of firm-specific resources and capabilities (Barney,
1991; Wernerfelt, 1984).
The basis of the resource-based view is that successful firms will find their future competitiveness on the development of distinctive and unique capabilities, which may often be implicit or intangible in nature (see Teece et al. 1991). Thus, the essence of strategy is or should be defined by the firm’s unique resources and capabilities (Rumelt, 1984). Furthermore, the value creating potential of strategy, that is the firm’s ability to establish and sustain a profitable market position, critically depends on the rent generating capacity of its underlying resources and capabilities (Conner, 1991). For Barney (1991) if all the firms were equal in terms of resources there would be no profitability differences among them because any strategy could be implemented by any firm in the same industry. The underlying logic holds that the sustainability of effects of a competitive position rests primarily on the cost of resources and capabilities utilized for implementing the strategy pursued. This cost
180 European Research Studies, Volume XII, Issue (3), 2009
that possess stocks of organizational knowledge associated with value that could be described as uncommon or idiosyncratic, stand a good chance of generating sustaining high returns (Raft and Lord, 2002). However, Leonard-Barton (1992) does warn that there is a dual nature within these knowledge-based stocks-capabilities, which can have as a result the alteration of the prior beneficial resources to potent core rigidities or performance inhibitors, in other words, what is a capability today may become a liability tomorrow. This concern that capabilities may become rigidities emphasizes the importance of understanding the processes of knowledge creation and development (Croom and Batchelor, 1997). Within KBV, two large subgroups can be identified (Acedo, Barroso, and Galan, 2006): One subgroup, which could be considered as closer to the RBV, asserts that knowledge is the most important strategic resource for organizations (Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996a; Kogut and Zander, 1992). Although the RBV recognizes the importance and role of knowledge in firms achieving a competitive advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991, 1996) knowledge-based theorists argue that RBV does not go far enough. Specifically, the RBV treats knowledge as a generic resource, rather than having special properties, and subsequently, does not make any distinction between different types of knowledge- based capabilities (Kaplan et al. 2001). The other subgroup shares Spender’s (1989, 1992, 1996) position on the importance of collective knowledge-a knowledge that is tacit and social. This stream offers insight into different types of behaviour, inherent limitations of individuals, and the development of firms’ knowledge-based activities and routines, assuming that individuals are limited by their bounded rationality (March and Simon, 1958). As a consequence of this limitation, not all of the firm’s knowledge can be found in any one person’s head and, therefore, it is distributed across its members. This difference is very well explained by Grant (1996a) who believes that knowledge resides at an individual level, thereby making knowledge integration the essential function for a firm: ‘Most research into organizational learning (Levitt and March, 1988; Huber,
- and the knowledge-based view of the firm (Spender, 1989; Nonaka, 1991,
- focuses upon the acquisition and creation of organizational (new) knowledge. My approach is distinguished by two assumptions: first, that knowledge creation is an individual activity; second, that the primary role of firms is in the application of existing knowledge to the production of goods and services’ (Grant, 1996a: 112). This approach ignores the concept of organizational knowledge and emphasizes the role of the individual in creating and storing knowledge. It is very similar with Simon’s observation that ‘all learning takes place inside individual human heads; an organization learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members, or (b) by ingesting new members who have knowledge the organization didn’t previously have (Simon, 1991: 125). Thus, unlike Spender (1992), who analyzes the dual role of firms in knowledge generation and knowledge application, Grant’s emphasis is on the firm
A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the Resource-Based Perspective^181 and the Knowledge-Based View
as an institution for knowledge application devising mechanisms for integrating individuals’ specialized knowledge (Grant, 1996a). Albeit there are different approaches of the KBV, the most accepted way of building distinctive capabilities and core competences within firms is through experience accumulation, knowledge articulation and codification (Macher and Mowery, 2006; Zollo and Winter, 2002; Nonaka, 1994; Zander and Kogut, 1995) or through the so called knowledge management (KM) processes of creating, acquiring, storing, sharing and deploying knowledge (Pemberton and Stonehouse, 2000). The extent to which a capability is ‘distinctive’ depends upon the firm and its employees in creating, acquiring, storing, sharing and deploying all necessary generic and specific knowledge that will give them a competitive advantage. Longevity of competitive advantage depends upon the inimitability of the capabilities which underlie that advantage (Barney, 1991). Although there is recognition that knowledge is a key business asset, organisations are still in the early stages of understanding the implications of KM. KM is slowly becoming an integral business function to them (Metaxiotis et al., 2005). Previous research (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Liebowitz, 2000) has shown that a knowledge-based company possesses knowledge that allows it to manoeuvre with intelligence and creativity giving it a special advantage. For Davenport and Prusak (1998) knowledge is the only source of a sustainable competitive advantage. However, since knowledge is not directly observable or measurable, then, it becomes a construct whose existence and properties can only be inferred through firm capabilities that are manifested in observable action (Stehr, 1992). This differentiates knowledge from resources, which can be identified without observable action. Different actions can be ascribed to different capabilities. Thus, a specific ‘constellation of actions’ represents a specific set of capabilities inside the firm and implies the existence of specific knowledge that is required to exercise these capabilities (Kaplan et al. 2001). Under this reasoning we could consider any function of the KM process (formal or informal), leading to the building of successful distinct capabilities or core competencies, as a ‘prerequisite or first-order KM capability’. Consequently, for a firm to have a sustainable competitive advantage ‘KM capabilities’ should be built first in order to be able to create all other necessary distinct capabilities and/or core competencies in time. Similarly, Kale and Singh (1999) believe that knowledge management processes represent a vital core competence that can be leveraged to build other strategic capabilities or “second order” dynamic capabilities (Zollo and Winter,
- as, for example, the capability to manage phenomena such as acquisitions, corporate restructuring, etc. Sher and Lee (2004) argue that KM includes three main functions: Knowledge creation, accumulation and sharing. Knowledge creation includes innovation, knowledge accumulation includes collecting new knowledge, codifying it and combining new and old knowledge, and knowledge sharing allows for diffusion of skills, experience and knowledge throughout the organisation.
A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the Resource-Based Perspective^183 and the Knowledge-Based View
presented schematically in figure 1. The proposed model includes three effects: (i) strategy or “utility” direct effects that sustain the necessary condition for achievement of higher performance, (ii) firm-specific assets’ direct and indirect effects and (iii) KM capabilities’ direct and indirect effects, that constitute the sufficient conditions for the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage or else sustainable performance.
(i) Strategy effects
Since customer and market needs are the primary keys for the maximization of profitability, managers have to develop and apply such strategies that maximize customers’ utility. This occurs by differentiated products or by lower cost production. Market demand, besides, reflects customer needs and demonstrates firm’s profitability. This is the reason that strategy effects that take into consideration market demand and consequently customers utility, are named otherwise “utility effects”. However, although utility effects provide the necessary condition for high performance, above industry’s average effects, coming from specific unique resources and capabilities, are needed for its sustainability (Spanos and Lioukas, 2001). Strategy or “utility” (direct) effects are shown by ξ 1 in the model.
(ii) Firm assets effects
As it has been already discussed, according to the RBV, the existence of unique resources leads to sustainable competitive advantage. Schematically, two efficiency effects are appeared (Spanos and Lioukas, 2001). One of them, ξ 2 , is directly related to firm performance. It indicates that the more unique combination of resources the organization possesses in relation to rivals the higher is its performance. In this case firm effects are independent of strategy. In parallel with direct firm assets effects, there are indirect effects, too. Path ξ 3 explains the perception that the more resources/capabilities the better the ability of the firm for a strategy that fits better market demand and results in higher customers’ utility. These indirect firm assets effects could be estimated as ξ 1* ξ 3.
(iii) KM capabilities effects
In accordance with KBV, KM capabilities are the primary responsible factors for the achievement of sustainable competitive advantage. These include all knowledge acquisition, creation, capture, storage, diffusion and transfer capabilities, which transform individual to group and, finally, to organizational knowledge. KM capabilities affect performance with two effects, direct and indirect, which affect the firm performance in a similar way with the firm-specific assets (i.e., the unique resources and capabilities). Hence, KM direct effect is denoted as ξ 4 and its indirect
184 European Research Studies, Volume XII, Issue (3), 2009
effect (through its effect on strategy) as ξ 5. These indirect knowledge effects could be estimated as ξ 1* ξ 5. However, KM capabilities also affect performance through a second indirect effect on firm-specific resources and capabilities, denoted as ξ 6. This KM capabilities’ indirect effect leads to the continuous improvement and/or renewal of the firm-specific resources and capabilities which, in turn, affect performance directly (ξ 2 ) or indirectly through their affect on strategy (ξ 3 ). Consequently, two hypotheses are formulated: Hypothesis 1 : Firm performance depends on competitive advantage through strategy or utility effects (as a necessary condition) the sustainability of which depends on direct and indirect effects stemming from available capabilities.
Hypothesis 2 : Firm performance depends on competitive advantage through strategy or utility effects (as a necessary condition) the sustainability of which depends on direct and indirect effects stemming from available KM capabilities.
Figure 1. The proposed conceptual framework
Knowledge
capabilities
Strategy
Market Performance
Profit ability
Firm Assets
ξ 5* ξ 1 Indirect KM effects
ξ 3* ξ 1 Indirect efficiency effects ξ 2 Direct efficiency effects
ξ 4
ξ (^6) ξ 1
ξ 3
ξ 5
186 European Research Studies, Volume XII, Issue (3), 2009
References
- Acedo F J, Barroso C, and Galan JL. 2006. The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal 27 (7): 621-
- Ahlgren P, Jarneving PB, and Rousseau R. 2003. Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (6): 550-560.
- Alavi M and Leidner DE. 2001. Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1): 107-136.
- Alchian AA, and Demsetz H. 1972. Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review 62 (5): 777-795.
- Amit R, and Schoemaker P. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal 14 (1): 33-46.
- Barney JB. 1986a. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science 32 (10): 1231-1241.
- Barney, JB. 1986b. Organizational culture: can it be a source of competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review 11 (3): 656-665.
- Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1): 99-120.
- Barney JB. 1992. Integrating organizational behaviour and strategy formulation research: a resource-based analysis. In Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 8, Shrivastava P, Huff A. and Dutton J (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT; 39-62.
- Barney JB. 1996. The resource-based theory of the firm. Organization Science 7 (5): 469-
- Barney JB. 2001a. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten- year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management 27 (6): 643-650.
- Barney JB. 2001b. Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 41-56.
- Barney JB, and Griffin R. 1992. The Management of Organizations: Strategy, Structure, and Behavior, Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.
- Barney JB, and Zajac E. 1994. Competitive organizational behaviour: toward an organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 15 : 5-9.
- Collis D. 1994. Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Winter Special Issue): 143-152.
A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the Resource-Based Perspective^187 and the Knowledge-Based View
- Prahalad CK. 1996. A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge versus Opportunism. Organization Science , 7( 5): 477-501.
- Croom S. and Batchelor J. 1997. The Development of Startegic Capabilities- an interaction view. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 8 (5): 299-312.
- Curtis P., Thalassinos, J., 2005, Equity Fund Raising and Creative Accounting Practices: Indications from Athens Stock Exchange for the 1999-2000 Period”, European Research Studies, Vol. VIII, issue 1-2, pp. 2-
- Davenpor T and Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Dyer JH.
- Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal 17 (4): 271-
- Grant RM. 1996a. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal , 17 (Winter Special Issue): 109-122.
- Grant RM. 1996b. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7 (4): 357-387.
- Hansen G, and Wernerfelt B 1989. Determinants of firm performance: the relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal 10 (5): 399- 411.
- Hoskisson RE, Hitt MA,Wan WP, and Yiu D. 1999. Theory and research in strategic management. Journal of Management 25 (3): 417-456.
- Huber GP. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and literatures. Organization Science 2 (1): 71-87.
- Kale P and Singh H. 1999. Alliance Capability and Success: A Knowledge- based Approach. Academy of Management Proceedings, August 1999.
- Kaplan S, Schenkel A, Von Krogh G, and Weber C. 2001. Knowledge-Based Theories of the Firm in Strategic Management: A Review and Extension, MIT Sloan Working Paper no. 4216-01, February 1, 2001.
- Kogut B, and Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capacities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3 (3): 383-397. Lee KC, Lee S and Kang IW. 2005. KMPI: Measuring Knowledge Management Performance. Information and Management 42 (3): 469-482.
- Leonard-Barton D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal , 13 (1): 111-125. Levitt B and March JG. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14 : 319-340.
A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the Resource-Based Perspective^189 and the Knowledge-Based View
- Phelan SE, and Lewin P. 2000. Arriving at a strategic theory of the firm. International Journal of Management Reviews 2 (4): 305-323.
- Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York. Priem RL, and Butler JE, 2001, Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes, Academy of Management Review , 26 (1): 22-40.
- Raft A., and Lord M. 2002. Acquiring new technologies and capabilities: a grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organization Science , 13 (4): 420-441.
- Rumelt R. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal 12 (3) : 167-185.
- Rumelt, R. 1987. The Competitive Challenge , Ballinger, Cambridge. Rumelt R. 1984. Toward a strategic theory of the firm. In Competitive Strategic Management , Lamb R. (ed.). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 556–
- Schmalensee R. 1985. Do markets differ much? American Economic Review 75 (3): 341-351.
- Sher PJ and Lee VC. 2004. Information Technology as a Facilitator for Enhancing Dynamic Capabilities through Knowledge Management. Information and Management 41 (8): 933-945.
- Simon HA. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1): 125-134.
- Spanos YE, and 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 (10) : 907–
- Spender JC. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue) : 45-62.
- Spender JC. 1992. Limits to learning from the West: How Western management advice may prove limited in Eastern Europe. International Executive 34 (5): 389-410.
- Spender JC. 1989. Industry Recipes: The Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgment. Blackwell, Oxford.
- Stehr N. 1992. Practical Knowledge. Sage Publications Inc, London.Teece D. 1984. Economic analysis and strategic management. California Management Review 26 (3): 87-110.
- Teeche D.J. Pinsno G. and Shuen A. 1991. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Working paper, Centre for Research in Management, Berkley.Teece DJ.
190 European Research Studies, Volume XII, Issue (3), 2009
- Thalassinos, John E. Curtis, Panayiotis G. (2005) “Equity Fund Raising and ‘Creative’ Accounting Practices: Indications from the Athens Stock Exchange for the 1999-2000 Period”, European Research Studies Journal,
Vol. VIII, Issue 1-2, pp. 127-135.
- Pisano G. and Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7): 509-533.
- Venkatraman N and Ramanujam V. 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review 11 (4): 801–814.
- Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5 (2): 171-180.
- Williamson OE. 1999. Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal 20 (12): 1087-1108.
- Zander V and Kogut B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organization Science 6 (1): 76-91.
- Zitt M, and Bassecoulard E. 1996. Reassessment of co-citation methods for science indicators: effect of methods improving recall rates. Scientometrics 37 (2): 223-244.
- Zollo M and Winter SG. 2002. Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. Organization Science 13 (3): 339-351.
