Case Study Of RBV

Topics: Property, Major film studio, Resource Pages: 26 (10345 words) Published: December 4, 2014
© Academy of Management Journal
1996, Vol. 39, No. 3. 519-543.

THE RESOURCE-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM IN
TWO ENVIRONMENTS: THE HOLLYWOOD FILM
STUDIOS FROM 1936 TO 1965
DANNY MILLER
Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montreal,
and Columbia University
JAMAL SHAMSIE
New York University
This article continues to operationally define and test the resourcehased view of the firm in a study of the major U.S. film studios from 1936 to 1965. We found that property-hased resources in the form of exclusive long-term contracts with stars and theaters helped financial performance in the stable, predictable environment of 1936-50. In contrast, knowledge-based resources in the form of production and coordinative talent and budgets boosted financial performance in the more uncertain (changing and unpredictable) post-television environment of 1951-65.

The resource-based view of the firm provides a useful complement to Porter's (1980) well-known structural perspective of strategy. This view shifts the emphasis from the competitive environment of firms to the resources that firms have developed to compete in that environment. Unfortunately, although it has generated a great deal of conceptualizing (see reviews by Black and Boal [1994] and Peteraf [1993]), the resource-based view is just beginning to occasion systematic empirical study (Collis, 1991; Henderson & Cockburn, 1994; Montgomery & Wernerfelt, 1988; McGrath, MacMillan, & Venkatraman, 1995). Thus, the concept of resources remains an amorphous one that is rarely operationally defined or tested for its performance implications in different competitive environments. In the interests of testing and advancing the application of the resourcebased view, this research develops the distinction between property-based and knowledge-based resources. We argue that the former are likely to contribute most to performance in stable and predictable settings, whereas the latter will be of the greatest utility in uncertain—that is, changing and unpredictable—environments (Miller, 1988; Thompson, 1967). Indeed, in this article we attempt to move from a resource-based "view" toward a "theory" by progressing from description to testable prediction. A view is a product

We would like to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Ming-Jer Chen, Steve Zyglidopoulos, and two anonymous reviewers. 519

520

Academy of Management Journal

June

of evocative description, but theory demands the formulation of falsifiable propositions.
THE NATURE OF RESOURCES

According to Wernerfelt, resources can include "anything that might he thought of as a strength or weakness of a given firm" and so "could he defined as those [tangible and intangible assets] which are tied semipermanently to the firm" (1984: 172). Resources are said to confer enduring competitive advantages to a firm to the extent that they are rare or hard to imitate, have no direct suhstitutes, and enable companies to pursue opportunities or avoid threats (Barney, 1991). The last attribute is the most obvious: resources must have some value—some capacity to generate profits or prevent losses. But if all other firms have them, resources will be unable to contribute to superior returns: their general availability will neutralize any special advantage. And for the same reason, readily availahle suhstitutes for a resource will also nullify its value. Thus, resources must be difficult to create, buy, substitute, or imitate. This last point is central to the arguments of the resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Lippman & Rumelt, 1982; Peteraf, 1993). Unusual returns cannot be obtained when competitors can copy each other. Thus, the scope of this study will he limited strictly to nonimitahle resources. Clearly, there are many resources that may meet these criteria, albeit with differing effectiveness under different circumstances: important patents or copyrights, brand names, prime distribution locations, exclusive contracts for unique factors...

References: Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management
Journal, 14: 33-46.
Barney, J. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management
Science, 32: 1231-1241.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17: 99-120.
Belsley, D., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. 1980. Regression diagnostics. New York: Wiley.
Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. 1994. Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to sustainable
competitive advantage
Bohn, T., Stromgren, R., & Johnson, D. 1978. Light and shadows: A history of motion pictures
(2nd ed.)
Bordwell, D., Staiger, J., & Thompson, K. (Eds.). 1985. The classical Hollywood cinema: Film
style and mode of production to 1960
Brumagin, A. L. 1994. A hierarchy of corporate resources. In P. Shrivastava & A. Huff (Eds.),
Advances in strategic management, vol
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Collis, D. J. 1991. A resource-based analysis of global competition: The case of the bearings
industry
Conant, M. 1960. Antitrust in the motion picture industry. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Conner, K. R. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought
within industrial economics
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive
advantage
Fiol, C. M. 1991. Managing culture as a competitive resource. Journal of Management, 17:
191-211.
Geroski, P., & Vlassopoulos, T. 1991. The rise and fall of a market leader. Strategic Management
Journal, 12: 467-478.
Gomery, D. 1991. Movie history: A survey. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy
formulation
Hall, R. 1992. The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal,
13: 135-144.
Hall, R. 1993. A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 607-618.
Huettig, M. D. 1985. Economic control of the motion picture industry. In T. Balio (Ed.), The
American film industry: 285-310
Itami, H. 1987. Mobilizing invisible assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Judge, G., Hill, R,, Griffiths, W., Lutkepohl, H., & Lee, T. 1988. Introduction to the theory and
practice of econometrics (2nd ed.)
Kindem, G. 1982. Hollywood 's movie star system: A historical overview. In G. Kindem (Ed.),
The American movie industry: 79-93
Kmenta, J. 1986. Elements of econometrics (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Wright, P. 1992. A competency model of sustained competitive
advantage
Lasky, B. 1989. RKO: The biggest little major of them all. Santa Monica, CA: Roundtable Publishing.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Lieberman, M., & Montgomery, D. 1988. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 41-58.
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences
in efficiency under competition
Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. 1992. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic
management
Mast, G. 1992. A short history of the movies (revised by B. Kawin). New York: Macmillan.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C, & Venkatraman, S. 1995. Defining and developing competence:
A strategic process paradigm
Michael, P. 1968. The Academy Awards: A pictorial history. New York: Grown.
Miller, D. 1988. Relating Porter 's business strategies to environment and structure. Academy
of Management Journal, 31: 280-309.
Miller, D. 1996. Gonfigurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, in press.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. 1984. Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Gliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Montgomery, C. A., & Wernerfelt, B. 1988. Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin 's Q. Band
Journal of Economics, 19: 623-632.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Peteraf, M. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic
Management Journal, 14: 179-192.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal,
12: 95-117.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, 68(3): 79-91.
Prais, S. J., & Winsten, C. 1954. Trend estimators and serial correlation. Cowles Commission
Discussion Paper #383, Chicago.
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable
competitive advantage
Robins, J. A. 1993. Organizations as strategy: Restructuring production in the film industry.
Robins, J. A., & Wiersema, M. 1995. A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • case study Essay
  • Case Study Essay
  • case study Essay
  • Essay about Mk Case Study
  • Case Study 1 Essay
  • NATS Case study Essay
  • ESR case study Essay
  • basis of the case study Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free