Resource Based View
Assignment
The purpose of this abstract is to summarize and evaluate the paper „Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research “ written by RICHARD L. PRIEM and JOHN E. BUTLER.
I. Summarization
The authors try to clarify the fundamental theoretical statements of the resource based view (RBV) and specify its fundamental contributions to knowledge.
PRIEM and BUTLER try to answer two basic questions:
1. Is the foundational and unembellished RBV actually a theory?
2. Is the RBV likely to be useful for building understanding in strategic management?
In order to approach these questions the authors firstly evaluate the diffusion of the RBV throughout strategy literature. In the following step they examine the basic RBV framework developed by BARNEY in order to check if it satisfies key requirements of a theoretical system. Next they examine RBV- driven research and finally develop suggestions from this analysis for future RB strategy research.
1. Is the foundational and unembellished RBV actually a theory?
Earlier strategy- related research has put its emphasis on SWOT-analysis and later, after the publication of Porter´s “Competitive Strategy”, on external, industry- based competitive issues. It has been WERNERFELT´s article “A Resource- Based View of the Firm”(1984) that increased the awareness of the importance of resources for a firm´s competitive position.
Among others RUMELT (1984), BARNEY(1986,1991), DIERICKX and COOL (1989) have contributed to the subsequent development of the RBV, making conceptual work to characterize firm resources that can be conducive to competitive advantage. Some theorists have emphasized on how resources contribute to diversification, while others examined how or why resources contribute to the advantage of one firm over another in a particular market. This “business-level” question of how to compete is elemental and determining both the RBV´s theoretical basis and its potential
The purpose of this abstract is to summarize and evaluate the paper „Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research “ written by RICHARD L. PRIEM and JOHN E. BUTLER.
I. Summarization
The authors try to clarify the fundamental theoretical statements of the resource based view (RBV) and specify its fundamental contributions to knowledge.
PRIEM and BUTLER try to answer two basic questions:
1. Is the foundational and unembellished RBV actually a theory?
2. Is the RBV likely to be useful for building understanding in strategic management?
In order to approach these questions the authors firstly evaluate the diffusion of the RBV throughout strategy literature. In the following step they examine the basic RBV framework developed by BARNEY in order to check if it satisfies key requirements of a theoretical system. Next they examine RBV- driven research and finally develop suggestions from this analysis for future RB strategy research.
1. Is the foundational and unembellished RBV actually a theory?
Earlier strategy- related research has put its emphasis on SWOT-analysis and later, after the publication of Porter´s “Competitive Strategy”, on external, industry- based competitive issues. It has been WERNERFELT´s article “A Resource- Based View of the Firm”(1984) that increased the awareness of the importance of resources for a firm´s competitive position.
Among others RUMELT (1984), BARNEY(1986,1991), DIERICKX and COOL (1989) have contributed to the subsequent development of the RBV, making conceptual work to characterize firm resources that can be conducive to competitive advantage. Some theorists have emphasized on how resources contribute to diversification, while others examined how or why resources contribute to the advantage of one firm over another in a particular market. This “business-level” question of how to compete is elemental and determining both the RBV´s theoretical basis and its potential
References: Priem, R.L. & Butler, J.E. 2001, Is the Resource- Based “View” a useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? The Academy of Management review, 26(1):22-40