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.

Increasing socio-economic inequalities in drug-induced deaths in Australia : 1981-2002

Introduction and Aims: Since the 1990s illicit drug use death rates in Australia have increased markedly. There is a notable gap in knowledge about changing socio-economic inequalities in drug use death rates. Some limited Australian and overseas data point to higher rates of drug death in the lowest socio-economic groups, but the paucity of available studies and their sometimes conflicting findings need to be addressed. Design and Methods: This paper uses data obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to examine changes in age-standardised drug-induced mortality rates for Australian males over the period 1981 – 2002. Socio-economic status was categorised as manual or non-manual work status. Results: With the rapid increase in drug-induced mortality rates in the 1990s, there was a parallel increase in socio-economic inequalities in drug-induced deaths. The decline in drug death rates from 2000 onwards was associated with a decline in socio-economic inequalities. By 2002, manual workers had drug death rates well over twice the rate of non-manual workers. Discussion: Three factors are identified which contribute to these socio-economic inequalities in mortality. First, there has been an age shift in deaths evident only for manual workers. Secondly, there has been an increase in availability until 1999 and a relative decline in the cost of the drug, which most often leads to drug death (heroin). Thirdly, there has been a shift to amphetamine use which may lead to significant levels of morbidity, but few deaths. [Najman JM, Toloo G, Williams GM. Increasing socio-economic inequalities in drug-induced deaths in Australia: 1981–2002.

How can entrepreneurial musicians use electronic social networks to diffuse their music

Principal Topic: ''In less than ten years music labels will not exist anymore.'' Michael Smelli, former Global COO Sony/BMG MCA/QUT IMP Business Lab Digital Music Think Thanks 9 May 2009, Brisbane Big music labels such as EMI, Sony BMG and UMG have been responsible for promoting and producing a myriad of stars in the music industry over the last decades. However, the industry structure is under enormous threat with the emergence of a new innovative era of digital music. Recent years have seen a dramatic shift in industry power with the emergence of Napster and other file sharing sites, iTunes and other online stores, iPod and the MP3 revolution. Myspace.com and other social networking sites are connecting entrepreneurial artists with fans and creating online music communities independent of music labels. In 2008 the digital music business internationally grew by around 25% to 3.7 Billion US-Dollar. Digital platforms now account for around 20% of recorded music sales, up from 15 % in 2007 (IFPI Digital music report 2009). CD sales have fallen by 40% since their peak levels. Global digital music sales totalled an estimated US$ 3 Billion in 2007, an increase of 40% on 2006 figures. Digital sales account for an estimated 15% of global market, up from 11% in 2006 and zero in 2003. The music industry is more advanced in terms of digital revenues than any other creative or entertainment industry (except games). Its digital share is more than twice that of newspapers (7%), films (35) or books (2%). All these shifts present new possibilities for music entrepreneurs to act entrepreneurially and promote their music independently of the major music labels. Diffusion of innovations has a long tradition in both sociology (e.g. Rogers 1962, 2003) and marketing (Bass 1969, Mahajan et al., 1990). The context of the current project is theoretically interesting in two respects. First, the role of online social networks replaces traditional face-to-face word of mouth communications. Second, as music is a hedonistic product, this strongly influences the nature of interpersonal communications and their diffusion patterns. Both of these have received very little attention in the diffusion literature to date, and no studies have investigated the influence of both simultaneously. This research project is concerned with the role of social networks in this new music industry landscape, and how this may be leveraged by musicians willing to act entrepreneurially. Our key research question we intend to address is: How do online social network communities impact the nature, pattern and speed that music diffuses? Methodology/Key Propositions : We expect the nature/ character of diffusion of popular, generic music genres to be different from specialized, niche music. To date, only Moe & Fader (2002) and Lee et al. (2003) investigated diffusion patterns of music and these focus on forecast weekly sales of music CDs based on the advance purchase orders before the launch, rather than taking a detailed look at diffusion patterns. Consequently, our first research questions are concerned with understanding the nature of online communications within the context of diffusion of music and artists. Hence, we have the following research questions: RQ1: What is the nature of fan-to-fan ''word of mouth'' online communications for music? Do these vary by type of artist and genre of music? RQ2: What is the nature of artist-to-fan online communications for music? Do these vary by type of artist and genre of music? What types of communication are effective? Two outcomes from research social network theory are particularly relevant to understanding how music might diffuse through social networks. Weak tie theory (Granovetter, 1973), argues that casual or infrequent contacts within a social network (or weak ties) act as a link to unique information which is not normally contained within an entrepreneurs inner circle (or strong tie) social network. A related argument, structural hole theory (Burt, 1992), posits that it is the absence of direct links (or structural holes) between members of a social network which offers similar informational benefits. Although these two theories argue for the information benefits of casual linkages, and diversity within a social network, others acknowledge that a balanced network which consists of a mix of strong ties, weak ties is perhaps more important overall (Uzzi, 1996). It is anticipated that the network structure of the fan base for different types of artists and genres of music will vary considerably. This leads to our third research question: RQ3: How does the network structure of online social network communities impact the pattern and speed that music diffuses? The current paper is best described as theory elaboration. It will report the first exploratory phase designed to develop and elaborate relevant theory (the second phase will be a quantitative study of network structure and diffusion). We intend to develop specific research propositions or hypotheses from the above research questions. To do so we will conduct three focus group discussions of independent musicians and three focus group discussions of fans active in online music communication on social network sites. We will also conduct five case studies of bands that have successfully built fan bases through social networking sites (e.g. myspace.com, facebook.com). The idea is to identify which communication channels they employ and the characteristics of the fan interactions for different genres of music. We intend to conduct interviews with each of the artists and analyse their online interaction with their fans. Results and Implications : At the current stage, we have just begun to conduct focus group discussions. An analysis of the themes from these focus groups will enable us to further refine our research questions into testable hypotheses. Ultimately, our research will provide a better understanding of how social networks promote the diffusion of music, and how this varies for different genres of music. Hence, some music entrepreneurs will be able to promote their music more effectively. The results may be further generalised to other industries where online peer-to-peer communication is common, such as other forms of entertainment and consumer technologies.

The development of a "Good Practice Guide" for first year curriculum development, revision and evaluation : a moving feast

Since 2002 QUT has sponsored a range of first year-focussed initiatives, most recently the Transitions In Project (TIP) which was designed to complement the First Year Experience Program and be a capacity building initiative. A primary focus of TIP was The First Year Curriculum Project: the review, development, implementation and evaluation of first year curriculum which has culminated in the development of a “Good Practice Guide” for the management of large first year units. First year curriculum initiates staff-student relationships and provides the scaffolding for the learning experience and engagement. Good practice in first year curriculum is within the control of the institution and can be redesigned and reviewed to improve outcomes. This session will provide a context for the First Year Curriculum Project and a concise overview of the suite of resources developed that have culminated in the Good Practice Guide.