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.

Organizational ambidexterity and corporate entrepreneurship : the differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal processes

Most corporate entrepreneurship studies have focused on either innovation, venturing or strategic renewal making comparison between the antecedents of all three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship difficult. Moreover, studies on corporate entrepreneurship hardly address organizational antecedents, while simultaneously managing and organizing CE and mainstream activities has been seen as a major challenge for incumbent firms. Our findings show that organizational ambidexterity has strong and differential effects on venturing, innovation and renewal. We find, for example, that innovation is affected by horizontal integration, while strategic renewal is significantly influenced by integration on top management team level.

All fours

A short stage play in the absurdist tradition. It was published by the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in "Movimiento Paroxista Revista Literatura" 1(1), 2011, pp. 17-25.

Chiesa dei Ss. Ippolito e Cassiano (The Church SS Ippolito e Cassiano in Cassano Valcuvia)

The development of the town of Cassano door, unknown time, first to build a chapel, a church filiare then, the town center, the building, intended for the cult of Mary, is described during the visit of Bishop Diocesan Pastoral Feliciano Ninguarda : "Item in the Middle huius pages, pro COMMODIT incolarum, east extructum sacellum, seu oratorium B. Dicatum Mariae Virginia, eastern parvum penes quo cum bell tower, ubi ab rates annis not fuit celebratum, quia non est to formam decretorum extructum [...]» [... down in Annex more information]

Esprit Futur : Le Corbusier and José Oubrerie at Saint-Pierre De Firminy, Firminy-Vert, France, 1968–2006

What is the secret mesmerism that death possesses and under the operation of which a modern architect – strident, confident, resolute – becomes rueful, pessimistic, or melancholic?1 Five years before Le Corbusier’s death at sea in 1965, the architect reluctantly agreed to adopt the project for L’Église Saint-Pierre de Firminy in Firminy-Vert (1960–2006), following the death of its original architect, André Sive, from leukemia in 1958.2 Le Corbusier had already developed, in 1956, the plan for an enclave in the new “green” Firminy town, which included his youth and culture center and a stadium and swimming pool; the church and a “boîte à miracles” near the youth center were inserted into the plan in the ’60s. (Le Corbusier was also invited, in 1962, to produce another plan for three Unités d’Habitation outside Firminy-Vert.) The Saint-Pierre church should have been the zenith of the quartet (the largest urban concentration of works by Le Corbusier in Europe, and what the architect Henri Ciriani termed Le Corbusier’s “acropolis”3) but in the early course of the project, Le Corbusier would suffer the diocese’s serial objections to his vision for the church – not unlike the difficulties he experienced with Notre Dame du Haut at Ronchamp (1950–1954) and the resistance to his proposed monastery of Sainte-Marie de la Tourette (1957–1960). In 1964, the bishop of Saint-Étienne requested that Le Corbusier relocate the church to a new site, but Le Corbusier refused and the diocese subsequently withdrew from the project. (With neither the approval, funds, nor the participation of the bishop, by then the cardinal archbishop of Lyon, the first stone of the church was finally laid on the site in 1970.) Le Corbusier’s ambivalence toward the project, even prior to his quarrels with the bishop, reveals...

Arts, gentrification, and planning for creativity

Recent decades have seen an almost obsessive focus on creativity in an urban development context. Yet, creativity has come to be prized not so much for the intrinsic values of imagination, innovation and experimentation as for the possibility to exploit these qualities as a means of urban revitalization and wealth generation. This policy emphasis has both contributed to the misplaced assumption that artistic activity causes gentrification and displacement while, at the same time, often setting in motion programs that are detrimental to the creative environments such policies claim to support. It is time to end the current approach to creative city planning, which treats the arts as amenities to catalyze land development and lure upscale consumption.