The contribution of enterprise systems to core capabilities: the case of asset lifecycle management in the utilities sector

The desire to obtain competitive advantage is a motivator for implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems (Adam & O’Doherty, 2000). However, while it is accepted that Information Technology (IT) in general may contribute to the improvement of organisational performance (Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani, 2004), the nature and extent of that contribution is poorly understood (Jacobs & Bendoly, 2003; Ravichandran & Lertwongsatien, 2005). Accordingly, Henderson and Venkatraman (1993) assert that it is the application of business and IT capabilities to develop and leverage a firm’s IT resources for organisational transformation, rather than the acquired technological functionality, that secures competitive advantage for firms. Application of the Resource Based View of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (DCT) (Teece and Pisano (1998) in particular) may yield insights into whether or not the use of Enterprise Systems enhances organisations’ core capabilities and thereby obtains competitive advantage, sustainable or otherwise (Melville et al., 2004). An operational definition of Core Capabilities that is independent of the construct of Sustained Competitive Advantage is formulated. This Study proposes and utilises an applied Dynamic Capabilities framework to facilitate the investigation of the role of Enterprise Systems. The objective of this research study is to investigate the role of Enterprise Systems in the Core Dynamic Capabilities of Asset Lifecycle Management. The Study explores the activities of Asset Lifecycle Management, the Core Dynamic Capabilities inherent in Asset Lifecycle Management and the footprint of Enterprise Systems on those Dynamic Capabilities. Additionally, the study explains the mechanisms by which Enterprise Systems sustain the Exploitability and the Renewability of those Core Dynamic Capabilities. The study finds that Enterprise Systems contribute directly to the Value, Exploitability and Renewability of Core Dynamic Capabilities and indirectly to their Inimitability and Non-substitutability. The study concludes by presenting an applied Dynamic Capabilities framework, which integrates Alter (1992)’s definition of Information Systems with Teece and Pisano (1998)’s model of Dynamic Capabilities to provide a robust diagnostic for determining the sustained value generating contributions of Enterprise Systems. These frameworks are used in the conclusions to frame the findings of the study. The conclusions go on to assert that these frameworks are free - standing and analytically generalisable, per Siggelkow (2007) and Yin (2003).

Liquidity risk and the performance of UK mutual funds

We examine the role of liquidity risk, both as a stock characteristic as well as systematic liquidity risk, in UK mutual fund performance for the first time. Using four alternative measures of stock liquidity we extract principal components across stocks in order to construct systematic or market liquidity factors. We find that on average UK mutual funds are tilted towards liquid stocks (except for small stock funds as might be expected) but that, counter-intuitively, liquidity as a stock characteristic is positively priced in the cross-section of fund performance. We find that systematic liquidity risk is positively priced in the cross-section of fund performance. Overall, our results reveal a strong role for stock liquidity level and systematic liquidity risk in fund performance evaluation models.

Pairs trading in the UK equity market: risk and return

In this paper, we provide the first comprehensive UK evidence on the profitability of the pairs trading strategy. Evidence suggests that the strategy performs well in crisis periods, so we control for both risk and liquidity to assess performance. To evaluate the effect of market frictions on the strategy, we use several estimates of transaction costs. We also present evidence on the performance of the strategy in different economic and market states. Our results show that pairs trading portfolios typically have little exposure to known equity risk factors such as market, size, value, momentum and reversal. However, a model controlling for risk and liquidity explains a far larger proportion of returns. Incorporating different assumptions about bid-ask spreads leads to reductions in performance estimates. When we allow for time-varying risk exposures, conditioned on the contemporaneous equity market return, risk-adjusted returns are generally not significantly different from zero.