RBV / Positional view / Dynamic capabilities Flashcards
Generic strategies
Porter (**)
- Cost / Differentiation, in order to position oneself in the market.
5 Forces
Porter (1985)
Threat of new entrants Threat of Substitutes Buyer power Supplier power Competition between firms in the market
Resource based view
Peteraf
Necessary conditions for a resource to lead to SCA
Barney:
Rare, Valuable, Perfectly Inimitable & Unsubstitutable
Industry lifecycle
Johnson et al.
Introduction -> Growth -> Shake-out -> Maturity -> Decline
Competitive advantage definition
Porter
Providing comparable buyer value more efficiently than competitors
Performing activities at a similar cost but in unique ways that increase buyer value.
competitive advantage is due to luck
Rumelt
-One lucky break can put someone in a sustained competitive advantage.
Factor markets leading to sca
Barney (1986)
- Imperfectly competitive strategic factor markets will lead to SCA, because firms can acquire superior resources
Asset stock accumulation
Dierickx & Cool
- One’s asset stock will be built up over time (path dependency), and it’s imitability will determine the extent to which a firm has competitive advantage.
RBV criticism: value if tautological
Spender & Groen (2010)
- Definition of value is tautological, making the theory useless.
- A resource is anything that leads to competitive advantage….. so it’s true by definition, so it’s not a theory
Dynamic Capabilities
Teece et al. (1997)
- Dynamic resources are capabilities which generate additional opportunities over time: capacity for learning and communicative skills for example.
core competencies
Prahalad & Hamel
A core competency must fulfill the following three criteria
1) Provides access to a wide variety of markets
2) Makes significant contribution to customer benefits of the end product
3) Difficult to imitate by competitors
Canon - Lazer & Lens technology
Dunlop - Rubber
Mixing rbv and positional view
Barnett (2006)
both rbv and positional views are required to derive maximum competitive advantage.
Pharmaceutical empiricals
Cool & Schendel (1988)
- Significant performance differences between US Pharmaceutical firms operating int he same segment, implying difference in profitability is due to resource based view
MArket share argument
Buzzell, Gale & Sultan
There is a positive relationship between ROI and market share, so, the higher one’s market share, the greater their capacity to secure profit.
Christensen
Experience curve
With a 70% market share, IBM earned 95% of the mainframe computer industries profits