Introduction- What is the Resource-Based-View of a Firm?

A Resource-Based-View emphasizes that a house utilizes its resources and capablenesss to make a sustainable competitory advantage that finally consequences in superior value creative activity and above normal net incomes. This position combines both the internal and external environments. There has been much literature written on this subject since the 1980s. In this essay. I will discourse the nexus between a firm’s resources and sustainable competitory advantage and the features and strategic deductions of the resource-based-view of a house.

Resource-Based-View -Background

The Resource Based View of a house ( RBV ) has grown in popularity since the late eightiess. It was originally developed by Wernerfelt in 1984 as an effort to construct a solid foundation for the theory of concern policy. ( Clulow et al. 2003 ) . However. the importance of firm-specific resources was recognized as far back as the 1930s by economic experts ; Chamberlin and Robinson. These economic experts suggested “that the alone assets and capablenesss of houses were of import factors giving rise to imperfect competition and the attainment of super-normal profits” ( Fahy. 1999 ) .

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This was further developed in 1959 by Penrose who suggested that a house is more than an administrative unit ; it is besides a aggregation of productive resources the disposal of which between different users and over clip is determined by administrative determination ( Penrose. 1959 ) . Towards the terminal of the 1980s. there was increasing dissatisfaction with Porter’s Forces Model which had dominated that decennary. This theoretical account concentrates its accent at an industry degree. This led to the outgrowth of the RBV of a house which acknowledged the importance of company specific resources in the context of the competitory environment.

The construct of firm’s resources heterogeneousness is the footing of RBV. The significance of this construct as a new way in the field of strategic direction was mostly recognized in 1984 with the article “A resource-based position of the firm” by Wernerfelt which in 1994. was awarded the Strategic Management Journal best award bespeaking that RBV was now a critical portion of strategic direction literature. He suggested that measuring houses in footings of their resources would take to penetrations that differ from conventional positions.

In 1991. Barney developed this construct further and developed a model to place the features of resources needed to bring forth sustainable competitory advantage.

Resources & A ; Capabilities of a Firm

One of the chief rules of RBV is that all resources are non of equal importance. More accent is placed on the features of advantage-creating resources. These resources can be divided into three groups: physical capital resources. human capital resources and organisational capital resources ( Collis & A ; Montgomery. 1995 ) .

Physical capital resources are the physical engineering used in a house such as equipment. natural stuffs and geographic location. These represent the touchable assets of a company. Human capital resources are the preparation. experience. judgement. intelligence. relationships. and penetrations of single directors and workers in a house. Organizational capital resources include the firm’s coverage construction. its formal and informal planning. commanding and organizing systems. every bit good informal dealingss among groups within a house and between a house and its environment ( Barney. 1991 ) . However. it is of import to retrieve non all of these resources may be relevant. The RBV of a house is merely concerned in resources that can be a beginning of sustained competitory advantage for the house.

Firm Resources & A ; Sustainable Competitive Advantage

A house has a sustainable competitory advantage when it implements a value making scheme that is non being implemented by another rival and can non be copied by another house. As all resources are non of equal importance or possess the possible to be a beginning of sustainable competitory advantage. it is of import to be able to qualify the relevant resources. Barney ( 1991 ) suggests that these resources must run into four conditions ; value. rarity. inimitability. and non- replaceability. Collis and Montgomery ( 1995 ) proposes that these advantage-creating resources run into five trials ; inimitability. lastingness. appropriability. replaceability and competitory high quality.


A resource can merely be considered a beginning of sustainable competitory advantage when it is valuable. Resources are valuable when they let a steadfast implement schemes that improve its efficiency and effectivity. ( Barney. 1991 ) . Both Barney. and Collis and Montgomery believe that there is a “complementarity” between environmental theoretical accounts of competitory advantage ( e. g. : a SWOT analysis ) and the resource-based position. A SWOT analysis will foreground a firm’s resources that will work chances and neutralize menaces. However. there are other features that a resource must possess for it to bring forth a sustained competitory advantage.


A valuable resource can non be considered a beginning of sustained competitory advantage if it is possessed already by other houses. If other houses possess this resource. so there is nil halting them from working the resource in the same manner. therefore extinguishing any competitory advantage. Some houses require a mix of resources to transport its scheme. These resources may dwell of a mix of touchable. intangible and capablenesss as mentioned before. One resource that may be necessary in implementing a firm’s scheme is managerial endowment. Together this package of resources may be rare. nevertheless. separately they would non make competitory advantage although they may still be valuable. ( Barney. 1991 )

Inimitability- Is it difficult to copy?

This may be one of the most of import features of a value making resource because it limits competition. If the resource is inimitable. so any net income generated from it is more likely to be sustainable. A resource that is easy copied will merely bring forth impermanent value.

A resource may be difficult to copy for grounds of complexness ; that is the competencies on which the scheme is based upon is excessively hard for rivals to understand. There may casual ambiguity associated with complexness ; intending that although a rival may detect what the coupled competencies of a successful scheme are it may be impossible to see why they give rise to the success they do. ( Johnson & A ; Scholes. 2002 ) . These insouciant equivocal resources are frequently organisational capablenesss. which may be culturally embedded deep down in the organisation and may even depend critically on peculiar persons.

Another beginning of inimitability is economic disincentive. This occurs when an organisation makes a big capital investing in an plus. The competition could retroflex this move. nevertheless because of the limited market potency. chooses non to ( Collis & A ; Montgomery. 1995 ) .

Unique historical conditions can besides be a beginning of inimitability. For illustration. a house that locates itself on a premises that turns out to be a much more valuable location that was anticipated is an inimitable physical resource. Another illustration would be a house. with a alone and valuable organisational civilization that was developed over a long period of clip. This would besides be difficult to copy. ( Barney. 1991 )

Non- Replaceability

This characteristic draws on Porter’s Five Force theoretical account. Although it may be impossible to copy a firm’s resource wholly. it may be possible to replace it with something similar. Barney ( 1991 ) gives the illustration of a peculiar firm’s high quality direction squad. It is possible for another house to make their ain high quality squad that is strategically tantamount. Therefore. a quality direction squad can non be viewed as a beginning of sustainable competitory advantage although it may be valuable. rare and inimitable.


This characteristic trials how long the resource will last ( depreciate ) . The longer the resource will last the more valuable it will be. Like inimitability. this trial asks if the resource can prolong competitory advantage over clip. Because of today’s quickly altering environment. resources depreciate really rapidly. For illustration. technological know-how in a fast changing industry is a quickly blowing resource. ( Collis & A ; Montgomery. 1995 ) .

This feature was foremost recognized by an economic expert Joseph A. Schumpeter in the thirtiess. He suggested that early movers with advanced new thoughts dominated the market ab initio and earned super-normal net incomes. However this valuable resource was shortly imitated or surpassed by another competitor’s invention. so their super-normal net incomes turned out to be ephemeral. Therefore. banking on the lastingness of resources is hazardous as most nucleus competencies have a limited life and will merely gain impermanent net incomes. ( Collis & A ; Montgomery. 1995 ) .

Imperfect Mobility

This is another ground why a resource may be a beginning of sustainable competitory advantage. It is concerned with whether or non the capablenesss and competencies of a house may be traded. If they can be traded. so sustainable competitory advantage may non be possible. A house may profit from holding a extremely advanced R & A ; D squad. nevertheless this plus may be head-hunted by rivals. therefore they are tradable. Intangible assets such as trade name name or trade name image is hard for another house to obtain. Even though a rival buys out the company. there may be jobs in reassigning the value of the trade name to new ownership. ( Johnson & A ; Scholes. 2002 ) . Grant ( 1991 ) . [ as cited by Fahy. 1999 ] proposes that some resources may geographically immobile due to the costs of resettlement and this is a trait shared with inimitability.

Appropriability- Who captures the value the resource creates?

It is of import to observe that non all net incomes from a resource travel back to the company that owns it. It may be spread out between many participants such as clients. distributers. providers. employees. stockholders and the authorities. For illustration. a house that relies to a great extent on contacts and relationships frequently considers this an of import resource. However this resource frequently resides with the persons doing the trades. Therefore. these persons can interrupt off from the house and put up themselves or travel to another house. A house may be effectual at capturing value from it physical and fiscal assets. but may non be as effectual at capturing value from their intangible assets such as trade name names and right of first publication ( Grant. 1991 ) . Establishing a scheme on resources such as these can do net incomes difficult to capture.

Competitive Superiority

When a house evaluates their resources. it is critical that they assess them relative to their competitor’s resources. When placing nucleus competencies. it should non be an internal appraisal but an external 1. The house should place what it does better than its rivals and place this as their typical competency ( Collis & A ; Montgomery. 1995 ) .

Fig 1: Features of a Resource making Sustainable Competitive Advantage

The RBV of a Firm’s Ability to Introduce

This is an emerging subject in resource-based literature. It is concerned with the

relationship between invention. steadfast structural features and the environment which the house operates. Traditionally. it is believed that differences in a firm’s advanced activities are explained by industry and organisational construction features. However. late there has been a turning organic structure of literature that embraces the RBV of a house ( e. g. . Brown & A ; Eisenhardt. 1995 ) and its relationship with invention. This perspective suggests that different organisational resources and capablenesss affect the firm’s capacity to introduce. ( Kostopoulos. Spanos & A ; Prastacus. 2002 ) .

Within this position. touchable and intangible resources are taken and transformed by capablenesss to bring forth advanced signifiers of competitory advantage. These advanced activities are limited by the handiness of fiscal resources. Harmonizing to Kostopoulos. Spanos & A ; Prastacus. ( 2002 ) . internally generated financess are more conductive to R & A ; D activities and investings than external financess chiefly because of the “existence of information dissymmetries between the house and the external capital environment” . for illustration ; a rival may derive information on R & A ; D undertakings and as effect the house may lose control over their inventions.

Therefore. from a resource based position position. invention does non come from scanning the external environment for market chances but from looking internally within a house and edifice on resources and nucleus competencies within the house.

Based on the premise of a firm’s resources heterogeneity the RBV focuses on the firm’s chance to bring forth advanced end product with increased hereafter value. This invention end product may last longer. will likely actuate farther invention and can lend to a sustainable competitory advantage. This invention will be difficult to copy by rivals as it will be based on house specific resources. ( Kostopoulos. Spanos & A ; Prastacus. 2002 ) .

This relationship between RBV and invention is bilateral. RBV expands the cognition of a firm’s capacity to introduce. At the same clip. invention provides an ideal method through which a house can regenerate its resources hence profiting the house in two ways.

( Kostopoulos. Spanos & A ; Prastacus. 2002 ) .

Resource Based View & A ; SHRM

With its accent on internal steadfast resources as beginnings of competitory advantage. the popularity of the RBV in the Strategic Human Resource Management ( SHRM ) has increased enormously. Since Barney’s ( 1991 ) article sketching the basic model and standards for beginnings of sustainable competitory advantage. the RBV has become by far. the theory most frequently used within SHRM. both in the development of theory and the justification for practical research. ( Dunford. Snell & A ; Wright. 2003 )

RBV has provided a theoretical span between the countries of scheme and SHRM. By concentrating attending to the internal resources. capablenesss and competencies of a house such as cognition acquisition and dynamic capablenesss. It has brought strategians to confront a assortment of issues as respects the direction of people. ( Barney. 1996 ) . However. most strategians are non good up on the specific HR tools used in the direction of people.

The RBV’s internal focal point on a firm’s resources has been of great benefit to SHRM and has provided a footing on which to research the function that people and HR maps can play in an organisation. It besides provides a model for HR forces to better understand the strategic direction of an organisation and hence. play a more positive and active function.


Firms should construct their schemes on value making resources that will make a sustainable competitory advantage as discussed in item antecedently. Once a house has identified these resources. they will frequently be intangible such as the organisational civilization. trade name name etc. Most houses are non positioned with competitively valuable resources but with a assorted bag of good. bad and second-rate resources.

Valuable resources must be joined with other resources and embedded in a set of functional policies and activities that distinguish the company’s place in the market.

In a changing environment. houses must continually get. develop and upgrade their resources and capablenesss if they are to keep fight and growing ( Wernerfelt & A ; Montgomery. 1998 ) .

An RBV scheme requires uninterrupted investing in order to keep and construct valuable resources. However. puting in resources without analyzing the industry environment is unsafe. By disregarding the environment and merely puting in nucleus competencies will increase the hazard of low return on investing. Similarly if rivals are ignored. the net incomes that could ensue from a successful RBV scheme will filtrate off in the battle to get those resources ( Collis & A ; Montgomery. 1995 )

If a house has no valuable resources when compared against the competition or if their resources have been imitated or substituted by rivals. so the house will be forced to upgrade their resources. Collis & A ; Montgomery ( 1995 ) place three ways of making this: –

1. Adding new resources such as a trade name name.

2. Upgrade to different resources that are endangering the company’s current capablenesss

3. Upgrade resources that will let the house to travel into a structurally more attractive industry.

The scheme of a house must leverage resources into markets that will derive competitory advantage or increase the firm’s resources. However directors tend to overrate the transferability of resources across different markets. This is normally because valuable resources are difficult to copy and replace.

The bi-lateral relationship that RBV has with invention is an ideal manner to make a sustainable advantage in two ways. First. RBV allows the house to end product invention of higher value and 2nd. these inventions can make new resources and capablenesss that rivals will happen really difficult to copy.

The resource based position of the house is an of import theory in strategic direction. However it is still merely turning as a organic structure of literature and as Collis ( 1991 ) notes. as cited by Fahy ( 1999 ) . “no coherent organic structure of theory has every bit yet emerged to summarize the resource-based view” . In this subdivision I have tried to reexamine the logic behind RBV and clearly explicate the importance and features of RBV every bit good as some of its utilizations.

Contextualisation: RBV and Tesco. com


Tesco’s on-line bringing service was ab initio launched in 1996. They were the first retail merchant in the UK to get down this type of service leting clients to put orders over the phone. by facsimile and on the cyberspace. In 2001. they expanded this service to Ireland. By 2001. they had the largest food market cyberspace concern in the universe. In this subdivision I will discourse how Tesco used a resource based scheme to accomplish this.

Tesco’s Resources

Tesco had the advantage over other online retail merchants in that they were already strongly established in the UK. They had a good recognized trade name name that had been built up since the 1930s and had developed a strong client base. Tesco besides had the fiscal resources to implement a good scheme. They were able to supply first-class client service due to the cognition they acquired through the Tesco ClubCard. The key to their success was their usage of their ain physical retail shops as distribution centres and their engineering partnership with Interwoven.

Tesco Clubcard

In 1995. Tesco introduced the first client trueness card. which offered benefits to regular shoppers while at the same clip assisting Tesco to analyse its customer’s demands. Today. Tesco has 10 million ClubCard member families. It is impossible to register at Tesco. com without a Tesco ClubCard figure. and if a first-time on-line shopper already has one. the system will acknowledge that. In this manner. Tesco is able to track how many on-line shoppers are its ain clients and how many it is pulling from the competition. Tesco uses the extended informations it gathers on its customer’s shopping wonts to custom-make merchandises and services.

They besides use this information to aim specific market sections such as immature households. pupils or senior citizens. This done through directing their ClubCard members a monthly magazine that is specifically tailored to peculiar demographic groups advancing new merchandises and offers that may involvement them.

Tesco besides organize ClubCard eventides ( free in-store assemblages for certain ClubCard holders ) to advance merchandises. For illustration. clients that may hold purchased vino or cheese online or in their shops may be invited to a vino and cheese eventide as a “thank- you” for their usage. However. these eventides are more about an chance for Tesco to hold personal contact with their clients and derive valuable information of the demands and wants of their clients.

Use of Existing Retail Stores as Distribution Centers

This is likely the cardinal resource that Tesco utilized in implementing its online scheme. When make up one’s minding the bringing format for it online shopping. Tesco had to make up one’s mind between two different attacks: the usage of warehouses or to utilize its bing retail shops as distribution centres. Building immense warehouses would hold cost 1000000s of lbs and were non executable. for illustration a warehouse in London would hold to cover a big country to warrant the cost of constructing it but so speedy and efficient bringings would be impossible due to the high degree of congestion in London.

Tesco realized that they could utilize their existing resources ( huge web of retail shops ) as distribution centres. By presenting from bing shops. no path takes longer than 25 proceedingss since 94 % of the population in England lives within a 25-minute radius of a Tesco shop. This attack besides greatly facilitated the rollout of their online service. While other rivals had to pass a batch of clip and money on the building of an extended warehouse operation. Tesco gained a first-mover advantage by utilizing its shops as distribution centres leting them to offer this service in 100 of its 639 shops in the UK in 1999 and pulling 250. 000 clients.

Tesco attempt to establish their existent order fulfilment procedure on resources that they already have. The existent procedure is as follows. Customer orders go an office in Dundee. Scotland. where they are grouped and sent to shops on the forenoon of the chosen bringing twenty-four hours. Each store’s ain computing machine system so sends the orders to shopping carts. equipped with mini-computers that navigate the choosers through the store for the orders in the fastest possible clip to guarantee maximal efficiency. Each supermarket is divided into six subdivisions: food markets. green goods. bakeshop. chilled nutrients. frozen nutrients and “secure” merchandises such as intoxicant and coffin nails.

Each chooser covers merely one subdivision. picking merchandises for six clients at a clip. Through the usage of the path planning computing machine and the division of the shop into six subdivisions. choosers mean 30 seconds of picking clip per point. so a typical point order of 64 points can be fulfilled in 32 proceedingss. Pickers work during normal trading hours but tend to travel around the shops when they are quietest: between 6. 00am and 10. 00am and 11. 00am to 3. 00pm.

The mean cost for picking an order is about $ 8. 50 and an mean order is $ 123. Tesco. com recovers these picking costs in a figure of different ways:

1. They save about 3 % of the order value by non utilizing check-out procedure clerks

2. On-line orders tend to hold higher gross borders ( more than 30 % ) compared their typical in-store sale ( 25 % ) . The ground behind this is that online shoppers tend to be more good off and buy more profitable goods such as organic veggies. quality meats etc.

3. Tesco. com minimise the cost of picking mistakes by automatizing every bit much of the procedure as possible. The choosers are all equipped with hand-held scanners so when they select an point they scan it through and the computing machine will state them if it is the right 1.

Technology Partnership with Interwoven

When establishing its online shop. Tesco’s challenge was to make the engineering to maintain abreast of stock list. Initially they employed several web design bureaus to pull off the web site. However. as Tesco’s online shop continued to spread out quickly the demand for more efficient direction grew. Therefore. Tesco formed a partnership with Interwoven to supply the needed engineering support.

This partnership has enabled Tesco to turn rapidly. They have gone from being a trial site for a few shops to the biggest online food market site in the UK. They have improved client dealingss as they can now make and unify store-specific content for all their retail locations enabling them to react rapidly to alterations in pricing. stock degrees etc.

Their site is run by a squad of merely 12 people which is really cost efficient.


The cardinal success of Tesco. com was the usage of their existing resources within the house They already had a strong trade name image thanks to their physical web of shops that they had built up from the 1930s which gave them an advantage when they launched their online shop.

Tesco were able to utilize information from their bing trueness card system ( ClubCard ) to analyze their clients in great item which lead to higher than normal degree of client service. For illustration. when a client logged onto their web site. they would be provided a record of what they had bought antecedently and of particular offers and publicities that would be of involvement to them specifically.

By placing their physical retail shops as distribution centres. they saved themselves the astronomical cost of edifice warehouses and the long period of clip involved in building them. This gave them first-mover advantage and allowed them to put to a great extent in other countries such as engineering to better efficiency. By utilizing this method of distribution. Tesco were able to vouch bringing of the customer’s order within a time-frame of 1 hr as 94 % of England is within a 25 mile radius of a Tesco shop.

Tesco realized that engineering had a big portion to play in the success of their online operation. As a consequence of salvaging money by utilizing an “out of store” attack they were able to put to a great extent in engineering to increase efficiency in a figure of different countries such as: automatizing order-picking every bit much as possible to rush up and cut down human errors made ( hand-held scanners and mini-computers ) and doing their web site more user-friendly ( web substructure was integrated with their stock list system informing clients instantly if their chosen merchandise was out-of-stock ) .

This resource based scheme has allowed Tesco to win market portion in new sections without holding to construct new shops. therefore a low capital committedness. In June 2001. Tesco bought a 35 % market portion in GroceryWorks ( a North American based online retail merchant that is bulk owned by Safeway ) which was doing serious losingss. GroceryWorks had antecedently operated utilizing a repositing system but this was replaced with Tesco’s in-store picking system. This scheme is a success with even lower operating costs than in England due to less congestion on the roads and lower fuel costs for the bringing new waves. Tesco has successfully introduced their resource based scheme to online food market retailing in the States.


Barney. J. . ( 1991 ) . ‘Firm resources and sustained competitory advantage’ . Journal of Management. 17. 99-120

Barney J. . ( 1996 ) . The resource-based theory of the house. Organizational Science. 7. 469.

Brown S. L. . Eisenhardt K. M. . ( 1997 ) . ‘The art of uninterrupted alteration: Associating complexness theory and time-paced development in unrelentingly switching organizations’ . Administrative Science Quarterly. 42. 1-34

Collis. J. and Montgomery. A. . ( 1995 ) . ‘Competing on Resources: Scheme in the 1990s’ Harvard Business Review. 73 ( July-August ) : 118-128

Clulow. V. . Gerstman. J. . Barry. C. . ( 2003 ) . ‘The resource-based position and sustainable competitory advantage: the instance of a fiscal services firm’ . Journal of European Industrial Training. 27/5. p220-230

Dunford. B. . Snell. S. . & A ; Wright. P. . ( 2003 ) . ‘Human Resources and the Resource Based View of the Firm’ . School of Industrial and Labour Relations.

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ilr. Cornell. edu/depts/cahrs/PDFs/WorkingPapers/WP01-03. pdf

Enders. A. . ( 2002 ) . ‘The Tesco. com Experience: Is Success at Hand? ’ . INSEAD

( used in the contextualization subdivision )

Fahy. J. and Smithee. A. ( 1999 ) . ‘Strategic Selling and the Resource Based View of the Firm’ . Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 1999 no. 10

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. amsreview. org/articles/fahy10-1999. pdf

Grant. R. . ( 1991 ) . ‘The resource-based theory of competitory advantage: Deductions for scheme formulation’ . California Management Review. 33 ( Spring ) : 114-135

Johnson. J. and Scholes. K. . ( 2002 ) . ‘Exploring Corporate Scheme: Texts and Cases’ . 6th erectile dysfunction. Harlean carpenter: Financial Times Prentice Hall

Kostopoulos. Spanos & A ; Prastacus. ( 2002 ) . ‘The resource based position of the house and invention: designation of critical linkages’

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. south southeasts. com/public/events/euram/complete_tracks/managing_innovation_opportunity/kostopoulos_spanos_prastacos. pdf

Penrose. E. T. . ( 1959 ) . ‘The theory of the growing of the firm’ . New York: Wiley

Wernerfelt. B. . ( 1984 ) . ‘A resource-based position of the firm’ . Strategic Management Journal. 5. 171-180

Wernerfelt. B. & A ; Montgomery. A. . ( 1998 ) . ‘Tobin’s Q and the importance of focal point in house performance’ . American Economic Review. 78. p246-250


I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out