Towards Parsimony in Terminology used in the Value Creating Process for Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Activity-Resource-Based View (ARBV) Perspective

1
Dr. Hanningtone Gaya PhD
Dr. Hanningtone Gaya PhD
2
Dr. Hanningtone Gaya
Dr. Hanningtone Gaya
1 The Riara University

Send Message

To: Author

GJMBR Volume 16 Issue A7

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

92273

Towards Parsimony in Terminology used in the Value Creating Process for Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Activity-Resource-Based View (ARBV) Perspective Banner
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu

This paper promotes the need for parsimony in terminology used in the actual value creating process for sources of sustainable competitive advantage by advocating for the need to have universally accepted definitions of the terms resources, capabilities and competencies. This urgent need for an explicit distinction of terminology is supported by recent literature. Specifically, this paper also advocates for the activity-resource-based view (ARBV), derived by integrating the activity and resource-based views, to be one of the main frameworks for analysing the actual value creation process for firms in the services industry. The paper also contributes to the bridging of the gap in strategic management literature and offers guidance for future research by urging scholars and researchers to embrace the empirical integration of the activity and resource-based views.

59 Cites in Articles

References

  1. C Armstrong,K Shimizu (2007). A review of approaches to empirical research on the resourcebased view of the firm.
  2. Jay Barney (1986). Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy.
  3. J Barney (2001). Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes.
  4. Jay Barney,Asli Arikan (2001). The Resource‐based View.
  5. J Barney,M Wright,D Ketchen (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991.
  6. J Creswell (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
  7. Jerker Denrell,Christina Fang,Sidney Winter (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity.
  8. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
  9. M Easterby-Smith,R Thorpe,P Jackson (2009). Management Research.
  10. Kathleen Eisenhardt (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research.
  11. K Eisenhardt,M Graebner (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges.
  12. J Fahy (2000). The resource-based view of the firm: Some stumbling-blocks on the road to understanding sustainable competitive advantage.
  13. Nicolai Foss,Thorbjørn Knudsen (2003). The resource‐based tangle: towards a sustainable explanation of competitive advantage.
  14. H Gaya,M Struwig,E Smith (2013). Creating a sustainable competitive advantage at a high performing firm in Kenya.
  15. H Gaya,E Smith (2016). Developing a qualitative single case study in the strategic management realm: An appropriate research design.
  16. J Fahy (2002). A resource-based analysis of sustainable competitive advantage in a global environment.
  17. H Gaya,M Struwig (2016). Is activity-resourcebased-view (ARBV) the new theory of the firm for creating sources of sustainable competitive advantage in services firms?.
  18. P Ghemawat (2008). Strategy and the Business Landscape.
  19. Michael Gibbert,Winfried Ruigrok,Barbara Wicki (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study?.
  20. R Grant (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis.
  21. A Haberberg,A Rieple (2008). Strategic management: Theory and application.
  22. Cwl Hill,G Jones (2009). The teaching of civics. By Mabel Hill. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co..
  23. M Hitt,R Ireland,R Hoskisson (2007). Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization.
  24. D Hoopes,T Madsen,G Walker (2003). Guest editors' introduction to the special issue: Why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity.
  25. N Hyett,A Kenny,V Dickson-Swift (2014). Unknown Title.
  26. J Kraaijenbrink,J Spender,A Groen (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques.
  27. A Lockett,S Thompson,U Morgenstern (2009). The development of the resource-based view of the firm: A critical appraisal.
  28. S Merriam (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
  29. S Merriam (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed).
  30. Scott Newbert (2007). Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research.
  31. J Pearce,R Robinson (2011). Strategic management: formulation, implementation and control of competitive strategy.
  32. Margaret Peteraf,Jay Barney (2003). Unraveling The Resource-Based Tangle.
  33. Margaret Peteraf,Mark Bergen (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: a market‐based and resource‐based framework.
  34. M Porter (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy.
  35. M Porter (2004). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
  36. M Porter (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy.
  37. R Priem,J Butler (2001). Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research?.
  38. R Priem (2007). A consumer perspective of value creation.
  39. Gautam Ray,Jay Barney,Waleed Muhanna (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource‐based view.
  40. M Rouse,U Daellenbach (2002). More thinking on research methods for the resourcebased perspective.
  41. Richard Rumelt (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm.
  42. Richard Rumelt (1991). How much does industry matter?.
  43. R Sanchez (2008). A scientific critique of the resource-based view (RBV) in strategy theory, with competence based remedies for the RBV's conceptual deficiencies and logic problems.
  44. T Scandura,E Williams (2000). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN MANAGEMENT: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..
  45. N Sheehan,N Foss (2007). Enhancing the prescriptiveness of the resource-based view through Porterian activity analysis.
  46. Norman Sheehan,Nicolai Foss (2009). Exploring the roots of Porter's activity‐based view.
  47. David Sirmon,Michael Hitt,R Ireland (2007). Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box.
  48. N Siggelkow (2007). Persuasion with case studies.
  49. Yiannis Spanos,Spyros Lioukas (2001). An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: Contrasting Porter's competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective.
  50. R Stake (1995). The art of case study research.
  51. R Stake (1978). Case study method: key issues, key texts.
  52. R Stake (2005). Qualitative case studies.
  53. A Thompson,M Peteraf,J Gamble,A Strickland (2012). Crafting and Executing Strategy: Concepts and Cases.
  54. Birger Wernerfelt (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm.
  55. Birger Wernerfelt (1995). The resource‐based view of the firm: Ten years after.
  56. R Yin (2002). Case study research: Design and methods.
  57. R Yin (2009). Case study research: Design and methods.
  58. R Yin (2012). Applications of case study research.
  59. A Zubac,G Hubbard,W Johnson (2010). The RBV and value creation: a managerial perspective.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

Dr. Hanningtone Gaya PhD. 2016. \u201cTowards Parsimony in Terminology used in the Value Creating Process for Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Activity-Resource-Based View (ARBV) Perspective\u201d. Global Journal of Management and Business Research - A: Administration & Management GJMBR-A Volume 16 (GJMBR Volume 16 Issue A7): .

Download Citation

Issue Cover
GJMBR Volume 16 Issue A7
Pg. 31- 42
Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJMBR

Print ISSN 0975-5853

e-ISSN 2249-4588

Keywords
Classification
GJMBR-A Classification: JEL Code: M10
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

August 17, 2016

Language

English

Experiance in AR

The methods for personal identification and authentication are no exception.

Read in 3D

The methods for personal identification and authentication are no exception.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 3578
Total Downloads: 1797
2026 Trends
Research Identity (RIN)
Related Research

Published Article

This paper promotes the need for parsimony in terminology used in the actual value creating process for sources of sustainable competitive advantage by advocating for the need to have universally accepted definitions of the terms resources, capabilities and competencies. This urgent need for an explicit distinction of terminology is supported by recent literature. Specifically, this paper also advocates for the activity-resource-based view (ARBV), derived by integrating the activity and resource-based views, to be one of the main frameworks for analysing the actual value creation process for firms in the services industry. The paper also contributes to the bridging of the gap in strategic management literature and offers guidance for future research by urging scholars and researchers to embrace the empirical integration of the activity and resource-based views.

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]
×

This Page is Under Development

We are currently updating this article page for a better experience.

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Towards Parsimony in Terminology used in the Value Creating Process for Sources of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Activity-Resource-Based View (ARBV) Perspective

Dr. Hanningtone Gaya
Dr. Hanningtone Gaya

Research Journals