Operationalizing the resource based view for nascent and young firms : developing scales for resource advantages and disadvantages

Principal Topic: It is well known that most new ventures suffer from a significant lack of resources, which increases the risk of failure (Shepherd, Douglas and Shanley, 2000) and makes it difficult to attract stakeholders and financing for the venture (Bhide & Stevenson, 1999). The Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) is a dominant theoretical base increasingly drawn on within Strategic Management. While theoretical contributions applying RBV in the domain of entrepreneurship can arguably be traced back to Penrose (1959), there has been renewed attention recently (e.g. Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Alvarez & Barney, 2004). This said, empirical work is in its infancy. In part, this may be due to a lack of well developed measuring instruments for testing ideas derived from RBV. The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement scales that can serve to assist such empirical investigations. In so doing we will try to overcome three deficiencies in current empirical measures used for the application of RBV to the entrepreneurship arena. First, measures for resource characteristics and configurations associated with typical competitive advantages found in entrepreneurial firms need to be developed. These include such things as alertness and industry knowledge (Kirzner, 1973), flexibility (Ebben & Johnson, 2005), strong networks (Lee et al., 2001) and within knowledge intensive contexts, unique technical expertise (Wiklund and Shepard, 2003). Second, the RBV has the important limitations of being relatively static and modelled on large, established firms. In that context, traditional RBV focuses on competitive advantages. However, newly established firms often face disadvantages, especially those associated with the liabilities of newness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986). It is therefore important in entrepreneurial contexts to expand to an investigation of responses to competitive disadvantage through an RBV lens. Conversely, recent research has suggested that resource constraints actually have a positive effect on firm growth and performance under some circumstances (e.g., George, 2005; Katila & Shane, 2005; Mishina et al., 2004; Mosakowski, 2002; cf. also Baker & Nelson, 2005). Third, current empirical applications of RBV measured levels or amounts of particular resources available to a firm. They infer that these resources deliver firms competitive advantage by establishing a relationship between these resource levels and performance (e.g. via regression on profitability). However, there is the opportunity to directly measure the characteristics of resource configurations that deliver competitive advantage, such as Barney´s well known VRIO (Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Organized) framework (Barney, 1997). Key Propositions and Methods: The aim of our study is to develop and test scales for measuring resource advantages (and disadvantages) and inimitability for entrepreneurial firms. The study proceeds in three stages. The first stage developed our initial scales based on earlier literature. Where possible, we adapt scales based on previous work. The first block of the scales related to the level of resource advantages and disadvantages. Respondents were asked the degree to which each resource category represented an advantage or disadvantage relative to other businesses in their industry on a 5 point response scale: Major Disadvantage, Slight Disadvantage, No Advantage or Disadvantage, Slight Advantage and Major Advantage. Items were developed as follows. Network capabilities (3 items) were adapted from (Madsen, Alsos, Borch, Ljunggren & Brastad, 2006). Knowledge resources marketing expertise / customer service (3 items) and technical expertise (3 items) were adapted from Wiklund and Shepard (2003). flexibility (2 items), costs (4 items) were adapted from JIBS B97. New scales were developed for industry knowledge / alertness (3 items) and product / service advantages. The second block asked the respondent to nominate the most important resource advantage (and disadvantage) of the firm. For the advantage, they were then asked four questions to determine how easy it would be for other firms to imitate and/or substitute this resource on a 5 point likert scale. For the disadvantage, they were asked corresponding questions related to overcoming this disadvantage. The second stage involved two pre-tests of the instrument to refine the scales. The first was an on-line convenience sample of 38 respondents. The second pre-test was a telephone interview with a random sample of 31 Nascent firms and 47 Young firms (< 3 years in operation) generated using a PSED method of randomly calling households (Gartner et al. 2004). Several items were dropped or reworded based on the pre-tests. The third stage (currently in progress) is part of Wave 1 of CAUSEE (Nascent Firms) and FEDP (Young Firms), a PSED type study being conducted in Australia. The scales will be tested and analysed with a random sample of approximately 700 Nascent and Young firms respectively. In addition, a judgement sample of approximately 100 high potential businesses in each category will be included. Findings and Implications: The paper will report the results of the main study (stage 3 – currently data collection is in progress) will allow comparison of the level of resource advantage / disadvantage across various sub-groups of the population. Of particular interest will be a comparison of the high potential firms with the random sample. Based on the smaller pre-tests (N=38 and N=78) the factor structure of the items confirmed the distinctiveness of the constructs. The reliabilities are within an acceptable range: Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.701 to 0.927. The study will provide an opportunity for researchers to better operationalize RBV theory in studies within the domain of entrepreneurship. This is a fundamental requirement for the ability to test hypotheses derived from RBV in systematic, large scale research studies.

Reflection on the use of rating and score cards for asset and service assessment

The concept of star rating council facilities has progressively gained traction in Australia following the work of Dean Taylor at Marochy Shire Council in Queensland in 2006 – 2007 and more recently by the Victorian STEP asset management program. The following paper provides a brief discussion on the use and merits of star rating within community asset management. We suggest that the current adoption of the star rating system to manage community investment in services is lacking in consistency. It is suggested that the major failing is a lack of clear understanding in the purpose being served by the systems. The discussion goes on to make some recommendations on how the concept of a star system could be further enhanced to serve the needs of our communities better.

Negative mood regulation expectancies, frontal lobe related behaviors and alcohol use

Negative mood regulation (NMR) expectancies have been linked to substance problems in previous research, but the neurobiological correlates of NMR are unknown. In the present study, NMR was examined in relation to self-report indices of frontal lobe functioning, mood and alcohol use in 166 volunteers of both genders who ranged in age from 17 to 43 years. Contrary to expectations based on previous findings in addicts and problem drinkers, scores on the NMR scale did not differ between Low Risk and High Risk drinkers as defined by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). However, NMR scores were significantly negatively correlated with all three indices of frontal lobe dysfunction on the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe) Self-Rating Form as well as with all three indices of negative mood on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), which in turn were all positively correlated with FrSBe. Path analyses indicated that NMR partially mediated the direct effects of frontal lobe dysfunction (as indexed by FrSBe) on DASS Stress and DASS Depression. Further, the High Risk drinkers scored significantly higher on the Disinhibition and Executive Dysfunction indices of the FrSBe than did Low Risk drinkers. Results are consistent with the notion that NMR is a frontal lobe function.

Description and evaluation of a Newton-based electronic appetite rating system for temporal tracking of appetite in human subjects

This study assessed the reliability and validity of a palm-top-based electronic appetite rating system (EARS) in relation to the traditional paper and pen method. Twenty healthy subjects [10 male (M) and 10 female (F)] — mean age M=31 years (S.D.=8), F=27 years (S.D.=5); mean BMI M=24 (S.D.=2), F=21 (S.D.=5) — participated in a 4-day protocol. Measurements were made on days 1 and 4. Subjects were given paper and an EARS to log hourly subjective motivation to eat during waking hours. Food intake and meal times were fixed. Subjects were given a maintenance diet (comprising 40% fat, 47% carbohydrate and 13% protein by energy) calculated at 1.6×Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), as three isoenergetic meals. Bland and Altman's test for bias between two measurement techniques found significant differences between EARS and paper and pen for two of eight responses (hunger and fullness). Regression analysis confirmed that there were no day, sex or order effects between ratings obtained using either technique. For 15 subjects, there was no significant difference between results, with a linear relationship between the two methods that explained most of the variance (r2 ranged from 62.6 to 98.6). The slope for all subjects was less than 1, which was partly explained by a tendency for bias at the extreme end of results on the EARS technique. These data suggest that the EARS is a useful and reliable technique for real-time data collection in appetite research but that it should not be used interchangeably with paper and pen techniques.

Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in grasslands: implications for detecting change at different scales

Extensive data used to quantify broad soil C changes (without information about causation), coupled with intensive data used for attribution of changes to specific management practices, could form the basis of an efficient national grassland soil C monitoring network. Based on variability of extensive (USDA/NRCS pedon database) and intensive field-level soil C data, we evaluated the efficacy of future sample collection to detect changes in soil C in grasslands. Potential soil C changes at a range of spatial scales related to changes in grassland management can be verified (alpha=0.1) after 5 years with collection of 34, 224, 501 samples at the county, state, or national scales, respectively. Farm-level analysis indicates that equivalent numbers of cores and distinct groups of cores (microplots) results in lowest soil C coefficients of variation for a variety of ecosystems. Our results suggest that grassland soil C changes can be precisely quantified using current technology at scales ranging from farms to the entire nation. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reference bias : presentation of extreme health states prior to EQ-VAS improves health-related quality of life scores. A randomised crossover trial.

Background: Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as healthrelated quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their selfreport. Methods: A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQVAS anchors. Results: Overall 106/151 (70%) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49%) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77%) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66%) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95%) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered. Conclusions: Health state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (#ACTRN12607000606482) http://www.anzctr. org.au

A comparison of the 27-item and 12-item intolerance of uncertainty scales

The 27-item Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS) has become one of the most frequently used measure of Intolerance of Uncertainty. More recently, an abridged, 12-item version of the IUS has been developed. The current research used clinical (n = 50) and non-clinical (n = 56) samples to examine and compare the psychometric properties of both versions of the IUS. The two scales showed good internal consistency at both the total and subscale level and had satisfactory test-retest reliability. Both versions were correlated with worry and trait anxiety and had satisfactory concurrent validity. Significant differences between the scores of the clinical and non-clinical sample supported discriminant validity. Predictive validity was also supported for the two scales. Total scores, in the case of the clinical sample, and a subscale, in the case of the non-clinical sample, significantly predicted pathological worry and trait anxiety. Overall, the clinicians and researchers can use either version of the IUS with confidence, due to their sound psychometric properties.

A survey of the use of grading scales for contact lens complications in optometric practice

Purpose:  The aim of this study was to investigate the extent and pattern of use of grading scales for contact lens complications (‘grading scales’) in optometric practice. Methods:  An anonymous postal survey was sent to all 756 members of the Queensland Division of Optometrists Association Australia. Information was elicited relating to level of experience, practice type and location, and mode of usage of grading scales. Results:  Survey forms were returned by 237 optometrists, representing a 31 per cent response rate. The majority of respondents (61 per cent) reported using grading scales frequently in practice, while 65 per cent of these preferred to use the Efron Grading Scales for Contact Lens Complications. Seventy-six per cent of optometrists use a method of incremental grading rather than simply grading with whole numbers. Grading scales are more likely to be used by optometrists who have recently graduated (p < 0.001), have a postgraduate certificate in ocular therapeutics (p = 0.018), see more contact lens patients (p = 0.027) and use other forms of grading scales (p < 0.001). The most frequently graded ocular conditions were corneal staining, papillary conjunctivitis and conjunctival redness. The main reasons for not using grading scales included a preference for sketches, photographs or descriptions (87 per cent) and unavailability of scales (29 per cent). Conclusion:  Grading scales for contact lens complications are used extensively in optometric practice for a variety of purposes. This tool can now be considered as an expected norm in contact lens practice. We advocate the incorporation of such grading scales into professional guidelines and standards for good optometric clinical practice.