A Scientific Critique of the Resource-Base View (RBV) in Strategy Theory, with Competence-Base Remedies for the RBV’s Conceptual Deficiencies and Logic Problems

OPEN ARCHIVE

Union Jack
Dannebrog

A Scientific Critique of the Resource-Base View (RBV) in Strategy Theory, with Competence-Base Remedies for the RBV’s Conceptual Deficiencies and Logic Problems

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Sanchez, Ron en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2009-02-04T10:26:29Z
dc.date.available 2009-02-04T10:26:29Z
dc.date.issued 2008-11-18T00:00:00Z en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10398/7231
dc.description.abstract Part I of this paper applies the principles of the philosophy of science and the derived scientific method to analyze the foundational concepts and core proposition of the Resource-Based View (RBV) as popularized by Barney (1986, 1991, 1997). This analysis identifies seven fundamental conceptual deficiencies and logic problems in Barney’s conceptualization of "strategically valuable resources” and in Barney’s VRIO framework for identifying strategically valuable resources that can be sources of sustained competitive advantage. Three problems -- the Value Conundrum, the Tautology Problem in the Identification of Resources, and the Absence of a Chain of Causality -- relate to the RBV’s and VRIO’s failure to provide an adequate conceptual basis for identifying strategically valuable resources. The Uniqueness Dilemma, the Cognitive Impossibility Dilemma, and an Asymmetry in Assumptions about Resource Factor Markets result in an inability of the VRIO framework to support identification of resources that can be sources of sustained competitive advantage. More fundamentally, the core proposition of the RBV – that resources that are strategically valuable, rare, inimitable, and organizationally embedded are sources of sustainable competitive advantage – is argued to result directly in the Epistemological Impossibility Problem that precludes use of the scientific method in RBV research. This paper argues that until these conceptual deficiencies and logic problems are recognized and remedied, the RBV – in spite of its current popularity -- is and will remain theoretically sterile and incapable of contributing in any systematic way to the development of strategy theory. Part II of this paper then suggests how foundational concepts developed within the competence perspective on strategy provide essential remedies for the identified deficiencies and problems in the RBV -- and thereby provide a more conceptually adequate basis for representing the nature of firms in the scientific study of their interactions and competitive outcomes. en_US
dc.format.extent 62 s. en_US
dc.language eng en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Working paper;2008-02 en_US
dc.title A Scientific Critique of the Resource-Base View (RBV) in Strategy Theory, with Competence-Base Remedies for the RBV’s Conceptual Deficiencies and Logic Problems en_US
dc.type wp en_US
dc.accessionstatus modt08nov18 nijemo en_US
dc.contributor.corporation Copenhagen Business School. CBS en_US
dc.contributor.department Institut for Industriøkonomi og Virksomhedsstrategi en_US
dc.contributor.departmentshort IVS en_US
dc.contributor.departmentuk Department of Industrial Economics & Strategy en_US
dc.contributor.departmentukshort IES en_US
dc.idnumber x656557213 en_US
dc.publisher.city København en_US
dc.publisher.year 2008 en_US


Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Files Size Format View
wp02-2008.pdf 614.6Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record