Value in the Resource-Based View: Resource Functionality as Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage

Value in the Resource-Based View:

Resource Functionality as Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage

Paper presented at the SMS 29th Annual International Conference, Washington DC

This paper puts forward that we can reach a better understanding of the value of resources in the resource-based view by embracing the notion of resource functionality and considering that value is a subjective feature of a resource. It is argued that the value of a resource does not only derive from its application in product markets and that the value-price-cost model is too limited. It is then argued that the value of a resource depends on managers’ assessments of four generic types of functionality: the suitability, combinability, fecundity, and durability of a resource. The paper contributes by providing a generic typology of resource value that facilitates resource-based theorizing and that enables a systematic assessment of the value of resources in practice.

INTRODUCTION

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm has become one of the most influential and cited theories in the history of strategic management theorizing (see Acedo, Barroso, & Galan, 2006, for a comprehensive analysis). Its central proposition is that a firm must control valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources and capabilities, and have an organization (O) in place which can absorb and apply them, if it is to gain a sustained competitive advantage (SCA) (Barney, 1991, 1994, 2002).

In its over twenty years of existence, the RBV has opened up new ways of looking at the phenomena of interest and has also provoked many discussions (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992). A persistent topic of RBV-discussions is the notion of resource value and its relation with a firm‟s sustained competitive advantage. Though elegant for its simplicity and immediate face validity, Barney‟s initial theorizing has triggered numerous discussions on how resource value should be assessed, created, and captured in the RBV. In this respect, Priem & Butler‟s (2001a; 2001b) critical papers and Barney‟s (2001) responses in the January 2001 issue of Academy of Management Review are widely-known.

In order to clarify these issues, several authors have called upon varieties of the „value-price-cost framework‟ (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000; Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003; Peteraf & Barney, 2003). To a large extent, the ambiguities around the concept of value within the RBV have been solved by the several contributors to the discussion – as long as a direct link between resources/capabilities and their contribution to competitive advantage is assumed. However, as many authors have pointed out, such direct link often does not exist. Factors such as information asymmetries (Miller, 2003), varieties in judgmental skills (Foss, Foss, Klein, & Klein, 2007b), and the equifinality of resources (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Priem & Butler, 2001a) make that subjectivism is involved and that there is no unequivocal link between a firm‟s resources and its competitive advantage (Lockett, Thompson, & Morgenstern, 2009). Moreover, the fact that firms also employ resources for their own survival that do not end up in their products implies that the value of some resources cannot arise out of their application in product markets.

Building upon a line of reasoning started by Penrose (1959), made explicit by Peteraf & Bergen (2003), and recently emphasized by Lockett et al. (2009), this paper argues that resource-based theory needs to focus more on the functionality of resources than on the value of resources per se. Peteraf & Bergen have pointed out that the value of a resource derives from its functionality in terms of customer needs. In this paper, we shall argue that such notion of value is too limited and that there are at least four generic types of functionality that determine the value of a resource. The paper contributes by providing a generic typology of resource value that facilitates resource-based theorizing and that enables a systematic assessment of the value of resources in practice.

POINTS OF DEPARTURE

The foundation for a resource-based theory that embraces the notions of resource functionality and subjectivity can be found in Edith Penrose‟s work on the growth of firms (Penrose, 1959). Below we focus on the four ideas that are most relevant as points of departure for developing the notion of value in a resource-based theory of competitive advantage. We will summarize Penrose‟s original ideas as well as later contributions that have been made.

Resources provide multiple productive opportunities

The first point of departure lies in Penrose‟s distinction between resources and services and her notion of productive opportunities. She argues:

“Strictly speaking, it is never resources themselves that are the „inputs‟ in the production process, but only the services that the resources can render. The services yielded by resources are a function of the way in which they are used – exactly the same resource when used for different purposes or in different ways and in combination with different types or amounts of other resources provides a different service or set of services. The important distinction between resources and services is not their relative durability; rather it lies in the fact that resources consist of a bundle of potential services and can, for the most part, be defined independently of their use, while services cannot be so defined, the very word „service‟ implying a function, an activity. As we shall see, it is largely in this distinction that we find the source of the uniqueness of each individual firm” (Penrose, 1959: 25, original italics).

As Penrose points out here, a single resource can be used for multiple purposes, in different ways, and in combination with different types and amounts of other resources. As such, a single resource provides multiple productive services, or „opportunities‟ as she also calls them. A similar point has been made by Yuchtman & Seashore when they explicitly argue that “the value of resources is to be derived from their utility as (more or less) generalized means for organizational activity rather than from their attachment to some specific goal” (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967: 897). Also Priem & Butler‟s (2001a) and Eisenhardt & Martin‟s (2000) comments on equifinality in the RBV point at that direction.

Scarcity and heterogeneity of resources should be assessed in terms of resource functionality

A consequence of the fact that a single resource provides multiple productive opportunities is that any classification of resources into particular types may be disregarding important sources of resource heterogeneity. As Penrose argues:

“There are many resources of which each unit is so much like every other unit that a homogeneous category can be established which includes a large number of units. This is true of many materials. With respect to other resources, however, each unit may be so unique that any classification, except one that makes each unit a separate resource, must disregard some heterogeneity; this is the case for human beings, land, and certain other types of resources.” (Penrose, 1959: 75)

Since, as Penrose argues, many resources are unique in the productive opportunities they provide, classifying them in order to understand resource heterogeneity will not work. This point has been further emphasized by Peteraf & Bergen: “Capabilities should be defined not in terms of resource types, but in terms of the functions that they serve. By categorizing resources in terms of functionality and use, managers can broaden their thinking not only about competitive opportunities, but about competitive threats as well.” (Peteraf & Bergen, 2003: 1028) “This suggests a search for functional similarities in order to identify rivals at this more fundamental level. That is, we should focus on similarities in use, rather than similarities in type” (ibid.: 1030, original italics).

Value assessment is subjective

Throughout her book, Penrose expands on the subjectivity involved in seeing and taking advantage of productive opportunities. She distinguishes explicitly between an objective and a subjective opportunity set. For example:

“Although the „objective‟ productive opportunity of a firm is limited by what the firm is able to accomplish, the „subjective‟ productive opportunity is a question of what it thinks it can accomplish. „Expectations‟ and not „objective facts‟ are the immediate determinants of a firm‟s behaviour” (Penrose, 1959: 41)

“If we can discover what determines entrepreneurial ideas about what the firm can and cannot do, that is, what determines the nature and extent of the „subjective‟ productive opportunity of the firm, we can at least know where to look if we want to explain or to predict the actions of particular firms (ibid.: 42)

In explaining the difference between the two, Penrose refers to factors such as entrepreneurial versatility, entrepreneurial ambition, and entrepreneurial judgment. While the majority of RBV studies has focused on an objective notion of resource value, scholars with a renewed interest in Austrian economics have recently started to explore the subjective side again (Foss, Foss, & Klein, 2007a; Foss et al., 2007b; Kor, Mahoney, & Michael, 2007).

Value concerns not only on satisfying customer needs

The main purpose of the RBV so far has been to explain how firms can maximize rent creation by delivering value to its customers. In that line, Wernerfelt (1984) and Peteraf & Bergen (2003) have theorized on the functionality of resources from the perspective of the customer. With his notion of duality and his resource-product matrix Wernerfelt has argued that resources and products are two sides of the same coin. In a similar vein, Peteraf & Bergen argue that “The value of a resource derives from its application in product markets. It traces back from the ultimate satisfaction of customer needs.” (Peteraf & Bergen, 2003: 1028). Wernerfelt and Peteraf & Bergen do make an important contribution here by bringing in resource functionality as a factor that determines the value of a resource. However, their view is too limited. Based on Penrose we argue that resources and products are not two sides of the same coin. Of importance here, is that not only the assessment of value is subjective (see above), but also the definition and estimation of demand:

“The really enterprising entrepreneur has not often, so far as we can see, taken demand as „given‟ but rather as something he ought to be able to do something about” (Penrose, 1959: 80)

“the „demand‟ with which an entrepreneur is concerned when he makes his production plans is nothing more nor less than his own idea about what he can sell at various prices with varying degrees of selling effort” (ibid.: 81)

“In reality no firm does produce just anything that happens to be in strong demand at any time in the economy […] Each firm is concerned only with a limited range of products and focuses its attention on particular product-markets selected from the total market. The selection of the relevant product-markets is necessarily determined by the „inherited‟ resources of the firm – the productive services it already has” (ibid.: 82)

As these quotes point out, the relevant demand for valuing resources – the ex ante expected demand - is not an objective exogenous factor but an inherently subjective one that is at least partly based on other resources already in the firm. This implies that, for assessment purposes, the value of a resource cannot be derived from the satisfaction of customer needs.

The second reason why resources and products are not two sides of the same coin is that not all resources are used for the production of products. Firms, for example, also employ resources for their own survival that do not end up in their products. Katz & Kahn (1979) have referred to this as the negative entropy of organizations. Though Penrose is not very explicit about it, it appears throughout her book that she is very well aware of the fact that resources are needed for such purpose as well. Examples are the parts of her book where she writes about the managerial services needed to coordinate and communicate (pp49-54). Also, firms may obtain and keep in reserve resources that cannot be used presently, but that are expected to be useful in the future. Though valuable, the value of such resources cannot be expressed in terms of the satisfaction of customer needs.

FOUR TYPES OF RESOURCE FUNCTIONALITY

Based on the Penrosian points of departure outlined above, we conclude that a useful notion of resource value should take into account different types of functionality and should recognize that any assessment of resource value is at least partially subjective. Along that line we will outline a fourfold typology of resource value below.

The basis for our typology is the most systematic and comprehensive functional classification scheme developed to date: Parsons‟ social systems theory (Parsons, 1937, 1951, 1959). Though influential in sociology, Parsons has never received much attention within management science. He introduced his theory to the management field in the first two issues of Administrative Science Quarterly (Parsons, 1956a, 1956b). Since then, however, only few management papers have explicitly built upon Parsons‟ work (Lyden, 1975; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Stein & Zwass, 1995). Also in books on organizations, typically only few minor sections are dedicated to it (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott & Davis, 2007). Despite of this limited explicit attention, Parsons‟ ideas are still widely used in the current literature. As Scott observes “… in general, Parsons‟ insights were not so much built upon as rediscovered by later theorists” (Scott, 2008: 25). It appears that the extensive critiques to Parsons‟ structural-functionalist work (e.g., Alexander, 1983; Giddens, 1984; Lockwood, 1956; Savage, 1981) have led to a dismissal of his complete work by many scholars. However, as we show below, the functional classification scheme Parsons developed has been a valuable contribution that deserves renewed attention when we aim to theorize on the functionality of resources.

From his major work, „The social system‟ (Parsons, 1951) until his later works (e.g., Parsons, 1977), Parsons has developed the notion of function extensively. To explain the, what is now called, „AGIL-framework‟, Parsons

discerns two orthogonal dimensions, which are the two major axes that comprise four functions fundamental to any social system (Parsons, 1959): the external-internal dimension and the instrumental-consummatory dimension. Together, the two dimensions comprise four functions that, as Parsons argues, are fundamental to the existence and survival of social systems: adaptation (external-instrumental), goal-attainment (external-consummatory), integration (internal-consummatory), and latent pattern maintenance (internal-instrumental). In the management literature the combined dimensions have been rediscovered in the competing value approach (Buenger, Daft, Conlon, & Austin, 1996; Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath, & St. Clair, 2007; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Based on these four types of functions, we can distinguish four generic types of resource value:

Resource Suitability

The first type of resource value is derived from the goal-attainment function. It is closest to the notion of value in the value-price-cost framework and Peteraf & Bergen‟s (2003) customer-based notion of resource functionality. In their view, a resource is valuable when it is suitable for fulfilling customer needs. When we recognize that fulfilling customer needs is not the only purpose for which resources are needed, we can generalize this notion of value to resource suitability in general. We define resource suitability as the extent to which a resource contributes to the

achievement of a particular goal. This may sound trivial. Yet, it deviates from the customer- and market-based

notions of value that we find in the RBV literature. Rather than directly assessing the value of a resource in terms of lower costs or higher benefits for customers, the notion of resource suitability puts emphasis on the goals of the firm. These goals are not restricted to lowering costs and increasing benefits. For example, if a firm intends to buy a new CNC machine for laser-cutting steel sheets, the value of that machine could be assessed in terms of lower costs or higher benefits for the customer. However, it could also be that the firm‟s goal is to provide better working conditions for its employees and that this can be done by buying a new CNC machine. The assessment of the value of the CNC machine will be different in these two cases. Therefore, we argue that the value of a resource should be assessed in terms of its suitability for achieving a particular goal and not only in terms of satisfying customer needs. Resource Combinability

The value of a resource depends not only on how well it suits the achievement of a particular goal. In order to function, firms should be able to combine a newly obtained resource with the resources already in place. This means that the value of a resource also derives from its combinability with other resources. Resource combinability relates to the integrative function and is defined here as the extent to which a resource can be effectively combined with

other resources a firm has access to. The value of resource combinations was already recognized by Penrose. She

argued that the productive opportunity set of a firm is influenced by the way in which managers are able to combine resources to produce productive services (Penrose, 1959). This second type of value stems from the complementarity, relatedness, and co-specialization of resources (Lockett et al., 2009). In the example above, the new CNC machine could perfectly suit the purpose of providing better working conditions. However, if the machine cannot be combined with an existing production line, for example, its value remains limited. Thus, in addition to its suitability, the value of a resource depends on its combinability with other resources.

Resource Fecundity

The third type of resource functionality is associated with the adaptive function. It relates to Penrose‟s notion of productive opportunities. As she argued, all resources have multiple productive opportunities. Some resources will be very specific and therefore limited in the variety of services that they can be used for. Other resources, though, are more general and can be used for a wide variety of goals. Money is an example of the latter type. The fact that a resource provides multiple productive opportunities is in itself a characteristic that can make a resource valuable. We call this type of value „resource fecundity‟ and define it as the extent to which a resource can be used in

different ways and for different purposes. Particularly in new and unpredictable environments this type of value is

important. It provides the firm with flexibility and responsiveness when the same resources can be used in different environments. In the case a resource is nonrivalrous – such as knowledge – it can even be used in a number of different ways simultaneously. In the example above, the value of the CNC machine increases when it can be used for multiple purposes. If this machine, for example, could also be used to cut synthetic material or could also be used to weld sheets together it is, ceteris paribus, more valuable than if it could not be used to do this. Since resource fecundity provides additional value that cannot be reduced to resource suitability and combinability, it is put forward as a third type of resource value.

Resource Durability

Whereas resource fecundity concerns the flexibility of resources, resource durability concerns the stability of the resource. Resource durability is defined here as the extent to which a resource continues to exist in the course of

time without significant deterioration. This fourth type of resource value is derived from the pattern-maintenance

function. It relates to what Dierickx & Cool (1989) have called asset erosion or decay and to the sustainability of a firm‟s competitive advantage. As they have pointed out, resources can lose value over time. Lockett et al. (2003) remark about this “Asset erosion refers to the shrinkage of the firm‟s stock of intangible assets, as these are destroyed by exhaustion, obsolescence and rivals‟ innovation. It is the intangible asset equivalent of balance sheet depreciation for tangible assets. It both afflicts the firm in isolation and arises through the actions of its rivals. In effect, the firm is a bundle of resources whose value is in constant flux.” (Lockett et al., 2009: 16). A resource that is durable is, ceteris paribus, more valuable than a resource that decays quickly, or a resource for which a lot of maintenance expenditures are needed. Applied to the example, it obviously means that a CNC machine with a long technological or economic life span is more valuable than one with a shorter life span. Since this resource durability cannot be reduced to any of the three other types, it is put forward as a fourth type of resource value.

IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION

We have argued that the value of a resource derives not only from its application in product markets and thus that the value-price-cost model and Peteraf & Bergen‟s (2003) notion of resource functionality are too limited. By recognizing four types of resource value this paper has put forward that the assessment of the value of a resource is a multidimensional judgment. As such, the paper has a number of implications for research and practice.

Along with those scholars basing their work on Austrian economics (Foss et al., 2007a; Foss et al., 2007b; Kor et al., 2007), our notion of resource value is a subjective one that requires judgment by an entrepreneur or manager. By distinguishing four types of resource value, we put forward that, although subjective, assessing resource value can and should be done systematically. We argue that the value of a resource should be assessed in the light of individual or firm goals (suitability), available resources within the firm or at its partners (combinability), uncertainty about the future (fecundity), and risks of deterioration (durability). By its systematic nature and simplicity we belief our typology provides practitioners with a better means to assess the value of resources than the resource-based literature has provided so far. As the CNC example has demonstrated, the four types of resource value can easily be applied in practice for assessing the value of resources.

Resources can be selected and obtained as rather unchangeable assets but often they can also be developed and adjusted, which is particularly the case for capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Makadok, 2001). The four types of value encompass guidelines for the direction in which such developments and adjustments should be made. The implications of our typology are that managers should strive to make the set of resources available to the firm more suitable, combinable, fecund, and durable. These directions are more specific than the directions following from Barney‟s work – that managers should strive to obtain and develop valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources and have an organization (O) in place which can absorb and apply them. However, to turn them into specific guidelines for managerial actions, further work is needed.

In this paper we have focused on the qualitative differences between the four types of value. Quantifying them remains a challenge for future research. For assessing the suitability and durability of tangible assets commonly used financial indicators such as the return on investment, net present value, and balance sheet depreciation may be sufficient. However, for assessing the combinability and fecundity of tangible assets and all four types of value for intangible assets, current indicators may proof insufficient. Moreover, distinguishing four types of value brings in the additional complexity of how to compare them and use them in combination. How, for example, does a resource that scores high on suitability and low on combinability, fecundity, and durability compare to a resource that scores intermediate on all four types of value? While we expect no universal answer to such issues, further theorizing and research is needed that explains how managers could or should deal with such issues.

REFERENCES

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. 2006. The Resource-Based Theory: Dissemination and Main Trends.

Strategic Management Journal, 27: 621-636.

Alexander, J. 1983. Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Vol. 4: The Modern Reconstruction of Classical Thought:

Talcott Parsons. London, Melbourne and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120. Barney, J. B. 1994. Bringing Managers Back In: A Resource-Based Analysis of the Role of Managers in Creating

and Sustaining Competitive Advantages for Firms, Does management matter? On competencies and

competitive advantage. The 1994 Crafoord lectures: 1-36. Lund, Sweden: Institute of Economic Research,

Lund University.

Barney, J. B. 2001. Is the Resource-Based "View" a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes.

Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 41-56.

Barney, J. B. 2002. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage: Prentice Hall.

Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. 2000. Value Creation Versus Value Capture: Towards a Coherent Definition of Value in Strategy. British Journal of Management, 11: 1-15.

Buenger, V., Daft, R. L., Conlon, E. J., & Austin, J. 1996. Competing Values in Organizations: Contextual Influences and Structural Consequences. Organization Science, 7(5): 557-576.

Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage.

Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1511.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.

Foss, K., Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. 2007a. Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization. Organization Studies, 28(6): 1-20.

Foss, K., Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., & Klein, S. K. 2007b. The Entrepreneurial Organization of Heterogeneous Capital. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7): 1165-1186.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hoopes, D. D., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. 2003. Guest Editors' Introduction to the Special Issue: Why is there a Resource-Based View? Toward a Theory of Competitive Heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal,

24: 889-902.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York etc. : John Wiley & Sons. Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., & Michael, S. C. 2007. Resources, Capabilities, and Entrepreneurial Perceptions.

Journal of Management Studies, 44(7): 1187-1212.

Lockett, A., Thompson, S., & Morgenstern, U. 2009. The Development of the Resource-Based View of the Firm: A Critical Appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1): 9-28.

Lockwood, D. 1956. Some Remarks on "The Social System". British Journal of Sociology, 7(2): 134-146.

Lyden, F. J. 1975. Using Parsons' Functional Analysis in the Study of Public Organizations. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 20(1): 59-70.

Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. 1992. The Resource-Based View Within the Conversation of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 363-380.

Makadok, R. 2001. Towards a Synthesis of Resource-Based and Dynamic Capability Views of Rent Creation.

Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 387-402.

Miller, D. 2003. An Asymmetry-Based View of Advantage: Towards an Attainable Sustainability. Strategic

Management Journal, 24: 961-976.

Parsons, T. 1937. The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to a Group of

Recent European Writers (1961 ed.). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System (1964 ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Parsons, T. 1956a. Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations. I. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1(1): 63-85.

Parsons, T. 1956b. Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations. II. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 1(2): 225-239.

Parsons, T. 1959. General Theory in Sociology. In R. Merton, L. Broom, & L. S. Cotrell Jr. (Eds.), Sociology

Today: Problems and Prospects: 3-37. New York: Basic Books.

7

Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. 2003. Unraveling the Resource-Based Tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics,

24: 309-323.

Peteraf, M. A., & Bergen, M. E. 2003. Scanning Dynamic Competitive Landscapes: A Market-Based and Resource-Based Framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1027-1041.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 2003. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001a. Is the Resource-Based "View" a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22-40.

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001b. Tautology in the Resource-Based View and the Implications of Externally Determined Resource Value: Further Comments. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 57-66. Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., McGrath, M. R., & St. Clair, L. S. 2007. Becoming a Master

Manager: A Competing Values Approach. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. 1983. A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3): 363-377.

Savage, S. P. 1981. The Theories of Talcott Parsons: The Social Relations of Action. London: MacMillan Press. Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. 2007. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open System

Perspectives. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. 1995. Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems. Information

Systems Research, 6(2): 85-117.

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180. Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, S. E. 1967. A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness. American