Resources are the foundation upon which an organization builds its competitive advantage. They can be divided into three broad categories: tangible assets, human assets, and intangible assets.
Tangible assets refer to physical resources such as a company’s plant, equipment, finances, and geographical location. These are the concrete, measurable assets that businesses rely on to conduct operations and generate revenue.
Human assets include the number of employees, their skill sets, motivation, and overall capability to perform tasks effectively. Employees play a vital role in the success of an organization, as their skills, engagement, and innovation contribute directly to the company's growth.
Intangible assets are often the most critical differentiators for a company. These include technology (such as patents, copyrights, and proprietary systems), organizational culture, and the company’s reputation in the market. Unlike tangible assets, intangible assets are not easily quantifiable, yet they hold immense value in establishing a company’s identity and competitive positioning.
Capabilities: Turning Resources into Outputs
Capabilities refer to a company’s ability to exploit its resources effectively. They are not merely about having resources; it’s about how a company uses them to produce desired outcomes. Capabilities emerge from business processes and routines that manage the interaction between resources, transforming inputs into outputs.
For example, a company’s marketing capability may arise from the interaction between its marketing specialists, distribution channels, and sales teams. Similarly, manufacturing capabilities could involve the coordination of production processes, technology, and workforce to ensure the efficient creation of products.
Capabilities are usually function-based, with different capabilities associated with different business functions. These might include marketing, operations, human resources, and finance. When these capabilities are continually adjusted and restructured to adapt to changing business environments, they are referred to as dynamic capabilities. These dynamic capabilities allow a company to remain competitive by responding to shifts in the market and technological innovations.
Competencies: Integration and Coordination of Capabilities
While capabilities are critical to individual functions, competencies represent the integration and coordination of these capabilities across different functions within the organization. A competency involves leveraging capabilities in an interconnected way to achieve superior performance.
For instance, in a division of a company, the competency for new product development might emerge from integrating the capabilities of the research and development team, marketing experts, production units, and information systems. Competencies are typically broader than capabilities and may span multiple functions, departments, or divisions.
Core competencies, on the other hand, are a collection of competencies that are not only extensive across the organization but also serve as unique strengths that enable the company to deliver significant value in the market. These core competencies become central to a company’s identity and competitive advantage. For example, Avon Products has a core competency in its door-to-door sales expertise, while FedEx excels in applying information technology across its entire operations.
The Evolution of Core Competencies: From Strength to Rigidity
Core competencies are highly valuable to a company’s success, but like all resources, they need to be nurtured and adapted over time. Core rigidities occur when competencies that were once strengths become outdated or less effective. If a company does not continually invest in and innovate its core competencies, these competencies may stagnate and lose their competitive edge.
For instance, Apple’s design capabilities were once a distinctive competency that set its products apart in the market. However, as other phone manufacturers caught up and began imitating Apple’s designs, this once distinctive competency evolved into a core competency. While still a strength, it was no longer unique, as competitors released similarly stylish devices.
To avoid core rigidity, companies must reinvest in their core competencies, continually refining and expanding them to meet new challenges and market demands.
Distinctive Competencies and the VRIO Framework
A company’s distinctive competencies are competencies that provide a significant competitive advantage. These competencies are so unique and valuable that they allow the company to outperform its competitors. According to Barney’s VRIO framework, four key questions can be used to assess whether a company’s competencies are distinctive:
1. Value: Does the competency provide value to customers and offer a competitive advantage?
2. Rareness: Is the competency rare, meaning no other competitors possess it?
3. Imitability: Is it difficult for competitors to imitate the competency?
4. Organization: Is the company organized to exploit the competency effectively?
If the answer to all these questions is “yes,” then the competency is considered distinctive, and it is likely to provide the company with a sustained competitive advantage.
Building and Acquiring Competencies
There are several ways a company can acquire or develop distinctive competencies:
1. Asset Endowment: Some competencies arise from unique assets acquired during the company’s founding. For example, Xerox’s copying patent served as a fundamental asset that allowed it to build its business.
2. Acquisition: Competencies can also be acquired through mergers and acquisitions. For instance, Disney’s acquisition of Pixar enabled it to re-establish itself as a leader in the animation industry.
3. Sharing Across Units: Competencies can be shared between business units or partners. LG’s expertise in electronics and production helped it successfully diversify into the home appliance sector.
4. Internal Development: A company can build competencies organically over time. Honda’s expansion from small motors to cars, boats, and lawnmowers illustrates how internal expertise can be leveraged to develop competencies across different product lines.
Research indicates that companies that grow through organic, internal development of competencies tend to outperform those that rely heavily on acquisitions. This is particularly true for knowledge-based industries where intellectual property, strong brands, and proprietary technologies are key differentiators.
A company’s ability to sustain its competitive advantage is determined by two factors: durability and imitability.
Durability refers to how long a company’s resources, capabilities, or competencies remain valuable. If a company’s core competencies are not continuously updated and improved, they risk becoming obsolete. For example, Sears was once the dominant player in retail, but its complacency and failure to adapt to changing market demands led to its decline.
Imitability is the degree to which competitors can replicate a company’s resources or competencies. If a company’s competencies are easy to imitate, then the advantage they provide may be short-lived. Some competencies are difficult to imitate due to factors like transparency, transferability, and replicability.
For instance, Gillette’s razor technology is difficult to replicate due to the complexity of its production process and the need for specialized equipment. On the other hand, products in industries with low barriers to entry, such as streaming services, are more susceptible to imitation.
The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Sustainable Advantage
One key element in sustaining competitive advantage is tacit knowledge, which is not easily transferred or communicated. Tacit knowledge is deeply embedded in a company’s culture and employee experience. Companies that rely heavily on tacit knowledge—such as Procter & Gamble with its brand management system—can develop competencies that are difficult for competitors to imitate.
However, tacit knowledge can also be a double-edged sword. Once it is identified and codified, it becomes more vulnerable to imitation. This is why companies need to protect their tacit knowledge through sophisticated security measures while simultaneously promoting innovation.
Conclusion:
By leveraging these internal strengths and strategically aligning them with external opportunities, companies can develop distinctive competencies that provide a lasting competitive edge. However, to sustain this advantage, they must ensure that their resources are durable and difficult to imitate, fostering an environment of continuous innovation and adaptation. Ultimately, the companies that succeed in these areas will be those that manage to create and protect a sustainable competitive advantage that sets them apart from the competition.
References:
1. Barney, J. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), pp. 159–172.
2. Barney, J. “Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal (September 2007), pp. 913–933.
3. Brady, D., and Capell, K. “GE Breaks the Mold to Spur Innovation,” BusinessWeek (April 26, 2004), pp. 88–89.
4. Coff, R. W., Coff, D. C., and Eastvold, R. “The Knowledge-Leveraging Paradox: How to Achieve Scale Without Making Knowledge Imitable,” Academy of Management Review (April 2006), pp. 452–465.
5. Davidson, P. “To Get Jobs, Areas Develop Industry Hubs in Emerging Fields,” USA Today (June 7, 2011).
6. Devan, J., Klusas, M. B., and Ruefli, T. W. “The Elusive Goal of Corporate Outperformance,” McKinsey Quarterly Online (April 2007).
7. Ethiraj, S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., and Singh, J. V. “Where Do Capabilities Come From and How Do They Matter? A Study in the Software Services Industry,” Strategic Management Journal (January 2005), pp. 701–719.
8. Grant, R. M. “The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation,” California Management Review (Spring 1991), pp. 114–135.
9. Helfat, C. E., and Peteraf, M. A. “The Dynamic Resources-Based View: Capability Life Cycles,” Strategic Management Journal (October 2003), pp. 997–1010.
10. Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., and DeMarie, S. M. “Navigating in the New Competitive Landscape: Building Strategic Flexibility and Competitive Advantage in the 21st Century,” Academy of Management Executive (November 1998), pp. 22–42.
11. Javidan, M. “Core Competence: What Does It Mean in Practice?” Long Range Planning (February 1998), pp. 60–71.
12. McEvily, S. K., and Chakravarthy, B. “The Persistence of Knowledge-Based Advantage: An Empirical Test for Product Performance and Technological Knowledge,” Strategic Management Journal (April 2002), pp. 285–305.
13. Newbert, S. L. “Value, Rareness, Competitive Advantage, and Performance: A Conceptual-Level Empirical Investigation of the Resource-Based View of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (July 2008), pp. 745–768.
14. Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966).
15. Porter, M. E. “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition,” Harvard Business Review (November–December 1998), pp. 77–90.
16. Shaver, J. M., and Flyer, F. “Agglomeration Economies, Firm Heterogeneity, and Foreign Direct Investment in the United States,” Strategic Management Journal (December 2000), pp. 1175–1193.
17. Verdin, P. J., and Williamson, P. J. “Core Competencies, Competitive Advantage and Market Analysis: Forging the Links,” in G. Hamel and A. Heene (Eds.), Competence-Based Competition (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994), pp. 83–84.
18. Welch, D., and Lakshman, N. “My Other Car Is a Tata,” Business Week (January 14, 2008), p. 33.
Comments
Post a Comment