A maintenance-data-model of enterprise resource planning

Two distinct maintenance-data-models are studied: a government Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) maintenance-data-model, and the Software Engineering Industries (SEI) maintenance-data-model. The objective is to: (i) determine whether the SEI maintenance-data-model is sufficient in the context of ERP (by comparing with an ERP case), (ii) identify whether the ERP maintenance-data-model in this study has adequately captured the essential and common maintenance attributes (by comparing with the SEI), and (iii) proposed a new ERP maintenance-data-model as necessary. Our findings suggest that: (i) there are variations to the SEI model in an ERP-context, and (ii) there are rooms for improvements in our ERP case’s maintenance-data-model. Thus, a new ERP maintenance-data-model capturing the fundamental ERP maintenance attributes is proposed. This model is imperative for: (i) enhancing the reporting and visibility of maintenance activities, (ii) monitoring of the maintenance problems, resolutions and performance, and (iii) helping maintenance manager to better manage maintenance activities and make well-informed maintenance decisions.

Applying integrated resource and environmental management to transmission right-of-way maintenance

The concept of a substantive integrator is introduced as a method for integrated resource and environmental management as a means to assimilate different resource values at the operational or field level. A substantive integrator is a strategic management tool for integrating multiple uses into coprorate management regimes that traditionally manage for single values. Wildlife habitat management is presented as a substantive integrator for managing vegetation on electric utility power line corridors. A case study from northern British Columbia provides an example of wildlife habitat management as a means to integrate other resource values such as aesthetics, access and subsistence along British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's transmission rights-of-way.

Linking resource acquisition and development processes to resource-based advantage : bricolage and the resource-based view

We investigate the relationship between bricolage – an approach to a firm’s resource development – and the firm’s strategic resource position as depicted by the resource-based view (RBV). The RBV is concerned with the resource characteristics of firms that lead to sustainable competitive advantage. Alternatively, bricolage is a process of resource use and development characterised by using resources at hand, recombining resources and making do. Based on a sample of approximately 700 nascent and 700 young firms we find that higher levels of bricolage behaviour tend to lead to more advantageous strategic resource positions.

Linking resource acquisition and development processes to resource-based advantage : bricolage and the resource-based view

We investigate the relationship between bricolage – an approach to a firm’s resource development – and the firm’s strategic resource position as depicted by the resource-based view (RBV). The RBV is concerned with the resource characteristics of firms that lead to sustainable competitive advantage. Alternatively, bricolage is a process of resource use and development characterised by using resources at hand, recombining resources and making do. Based on a sample of 1,329 entrepreneurial start-ups we find that higher levels of bricolage behaviour tend to lead to more advantageous strategic resource positions.

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.

From resource base to dynamic capabilities : an investigation of new firms

Despite the numerous observations that dynamic capabilities lie at the source of competitive advantage, we still have limited knowledge as to how access to firm-based resources and changes to these affect the development of dynamic capabilities. In this paper, we examine founder human capital, access to employee human capital, access to technological expertise, access to other specific expertise, and access to two types of tangible resources in a sample of new firms in Sweden. We empirically measure four dynamic capabilities and find that the nature and effect of resources employed in the development of these capabilities vary greatly. For the most part, there are positive effects stemming from access to particular resources. However, for some resources, such as access to employee human capital and access to financial capital, unexpected negative effects also appear. This study therefore provides statistical evidence as to the varying role of resources in capability development. Importantly, we also find that changes in resource bases have more influential roles in the development of dynamic capabilities than the resource stock variables that were measured at an earlier stage of firm development. This provides empirical support for the notion of treating the firm as a dynamic flow of resources as opposed to a static stock. This finding also highlights the importance of longitudinal designs in studies of dynamic capability development. Further recommendations for future empirical studies of dynamic capabilities are presented.

Human resource management and innovation: what are knowledge-intensive firms doing?

An undeniable shift in focus from traditional production companies to Knowledge-Intensive Firms (KIFs) poses challenges for academics and practioners alike. In particular, effective management of an organization's human resources has become a critical issue for ensuring sustained innovation capacity. The relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) in KIFs is however still a largely unexplored arena. The objective of this paper is to explore this relationship in an effort to identify HRM practices that support innovation. To this end, the paper includes reviews of the literature relevant to HRM and innovation in KIFs and four case studies from companies in Denmark and Australia that have been recognized for excellence in innovation. On the basis of content analyses conducted on the case data, some preliminary conclusions are posited regarding the role of HRM in KIFs. More specifically, the findings from this study suggest that while there are commonalities between HRM practices in traditional manufacturing companies and KIFs, there are also important differences, especially in terms of staffing practices. The paper contributes by offering recommendations for management of HRM in innovative KIFs and potential avenues for research to further develop our understanding of how HRM can support innovation in KIFs.