Strategic Management Journal. Antecedents of temporary advantage, страница 4

The field of strategic management without sustainable advantage

1.Top of page

2.Abstract

3.Antecedents of temporary advantage

4.The management of temporary advantage

5.Consequences of temporary advantage

6.The field of strategic management without sustainable advantage

7.SUMMARY OF EXTANT WORK ON TEMPORARY ADVANTAGE

8.THIS SPECIAL ISSUE'S UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEMPORARY ADVANTAGE

9.THE FUTURE OF TEMPORARY VERSUS SUSTAINABLE ADVANTAGE: MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OR SIMULTANEOUSLY COEXISTENT?

10.REFERENCES

Of course, we all know that nothing is sustainable forever. The question then is really one of duration of advantages. If one accepts the evidence that advantages are fleeting at a rate different from 25 to 30 years ago when our models of competitive advantage were created, how should existing theoretical models and data sets be revised, and what new models and methods of research are needed?

New theoretical models

The two key sustainable advantage models are Porter's five forces model and the resource-based view of the firm. Porter's (1980) five forces model suggests that firms can sustain advantages by the selection of industries and the way they positioning themselves within industries. This model is supported by substantial, but somewhat dated, research on the structure-conduct-performance paradigm from industrial organization economics. Specifically, Porter suggests that firms seek and position themselves in industries with high entry barriers, weak suppliers, and buyers, few threats from substitutes, and limited rivalry. But, does this automatically mean that when advantages are temporary or quickly eroding that the structure of the industry has changed such that barriers are lower, buyers and suppliers are stronger, the threat of substitutes greater, and rivalry is high? Or, does it mean that these structural conditions are quickly changing? What would Porter advise under these conditions? Perhaps he would suggest it is time to select a new industry or to find some way to change the industry structure so that it is more favorable? Furthermore, under conditions of rapid change, where the boundaries of industries blur and are hard to define, how is one to assess and measure rivalry and buyer and supplier power? Take the U.S. cell phone industry for example, where in 2010 firms like AT&T, Verizon, Apple, Goggle, Comcast, and Cox are all changing their business models. Are these firms buyers, suppliers, or rivals? What does industry structure mean in this new age of temporary advantages?

The resource-based view conceives firms as collections of resources (Penrose, 1959). Barney (1991) formalized the framework for explaining how a firm's resources can be used as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. His framework is based on two fundamental assumptions: (1) firms within an industry are heterogeneous in the resources they control and (2) these resources may not be perfectly mobile across firms (Barney, 1991). With these assumptions, Barney argues that markets for resources are imperfect and, hence, a firm can achieve sustainable competitive advantage by acquiring or developing resources that are valuable, unique, nontradable, rare, nonsubstitutable, or nonimitable. But what does this model say about sustainability when factor markets continue to move toward perfection or toward constant disruption through innovation or rivalry? Or what if there are dramatic or even constant changes in resource value, uniqueness, tradability, and imitability?

What would the field of strategy be like if we conclude that the key instruments of strategy design no longer have value? Both Porter's five forces model and the resource-based view are rooted in a conception of the world that is essentially stable. And much of economic thinking is based on assumptions of equilibrium. What if equilibrium is impossible or fleeting? What if industry structure is too temporary to be called structure and oligopolistic bargains, barriers to entry, and market power over buyers are quite limited or fleeting? What do economic models tell us about advantage when industry structure and cooperative solutions are not sustainable? And what do we have when markets, resources, and firms are continuously moving but never reaching equilibrium?