An integrative

Organizational learning and model

resource-based theory: an
integrative model
41
Ken A. Smith, Satish P. Vasudevan and Mohan R. Tanniru
School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA

In recent years, resource-based theory has emerged as one of the most

promising theoretical frameworks in the field of strategic management.
Unfortunately, past articulations of the theory are limited by their inability to
incorporate effectively organizational learning, a key organizational capability
thought to contribute to competitive advantage. This paper presents a model
designed to incorporate organizational learning into the resource-based view
and demonstrates the need for such a model through a number of case
examples. Our fundamental argument is that organizational learning is a
strategic capability and that resource-based theory must be able to incorporate
organizational learning if it is to explain adequately the process of achieving
sustainable competitive advantage.

Organizational learning
With the emergence of the global economy and the accelerating dynamics of the
marketplace, firms everywhere have realized the need to improve constantly
their products and processes in order to create and retain competitive advantage
(cf. Flood and Olian, 1996). The current interest in organizational learning (OL)
among management scholars and practitioners reflects this new competitive
landscape.
Nevis, DiBella and Gould (1995) have defined organizational learning as the
capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve
performance based on experience (Nevis et al., 1995, p. 73). This definition is
similar to those advanced by Argyris and Schon (1978), Dodgson (1993), Senge
(1990) and Shrivastava and Grant (1985). According to Dodgson, Learning is a
dynamic concept, and its use in theory emphasizes the continually changing
nature of organizations (Dodgson, 1993, p. 376).
Within this broad conceptualization, theorists have recognized different
types, or levels, of learning. For example, Argyris and Schon (1978) have
emphasized the need for double-loop learning learning required to make
fundamental changes in basic assumptions about the competitive environment
in addition to single-loop learning, which relates to improvements in existing
organizational processes. Similarly, Senge (1990) contrasts generative with Journal of Organizational Change
adaptive learning. Both levels of learning are necessary to the pursuit of Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, 1996,
pp. 41-53. MCB University Press,
competitive advantage, as after periods of significant discontinuous change, 0953-4814
JOCM incremental or adaptive learning may be required to help consolidate
9,6 transformational learning (Nevis et al., 1995).
Importantly, organizational economists have begun viewing OL as an
organizational capability in and of itself (cf. Cohen and Levinthal, 1989). This
perspective is reflected in the management literature as well, in that attempts to
describe learning organizations have concluded that learning capability varies
42 widely among organizations. Thus, Nevis et al. (1995) suggest a diagnostic tool
to enable an organization to generate its learning profile as a basis for efforts to
improve its learning capability. In general, then, it has been suggested that OL
is a measurable organizational capability one that can be developed over time,
and one that can be directed towards the achievement of competitive advantage.

Resource-based theory
The quest for competitive advantage has long been a central tenet of the field of
strategic management (Porter, 1985). Within this field, resource-based theory
(RBT) has emerged as a promising new framework for analysing the sources
and sustainability of competitive advantage (cf. Barney, 1991; Dierickx and
Cool, 1989; Peteraf, 1993). According to RBT, competitive advantage
measured as economic rent (Castanias and Helfat, 1991) derives from strategic
resources. Such competitive advantage is sustainable to the extent that the
resources on which it is based are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-
substitutable (Barney, 1991). Further, RBT rests on the premiss that resources
controlled by firms are heterogeneous and relatively immobile (Peteraf, 1993).
The imperfect mobility of resources (including inimitability and non-
substitutability) is due to a variety of isolation mechanisms (Rumelt, 1984)
which include co-specialization of assets (Teece, 1986), unique historical
conditions (Barney, 1991), causal ambiguity (Lippman and Rumelt, 1982), social
complexity (Barney, 1991; Dierickx and Cool, 1989), and tacit knowledge and
skills (Polanyi, 1967; Reed and DeFillippi, 1990).
Given that organizational learning and resource-based theory both seek the
objective of creating and sustaining competitive advantage, it seems logical for
organizational learning to be identified as a strategic resource within the
resource-based view. However, current articulations of RBT suffer three major
limitations that make the inclusion of organizational learning problematic.
First, most of the early literature on RBT adopted a narrow definition of
resources and focused primarily on the tangible assets under the firms control
(cf. Dierickx and Cool, 1989). Although recent discussion has broadened the
definition of resource to include tangible and intangible resources, as well as the
capabilities required to deploy firm assets (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Barney,
1991), there remains a tendency in the literature to focus on the strategic
potential of individual resources. This focus on individual resources in
evaluating opportunities for sustainable competitive advantage has resulted in
the under-exploration of competitive advantage through multiple resources
interactions. Organizational learning, however, assumes benefit from complex
interactions between resources and their effective use. It is therefore necessary
to clarify and operationalize the concept of resource bundles (Barney, 1991) to An integrative
provide a basis for examining the different type of resource interactions that model
can occur.
Second, building a competitive advantage takes time. By adopting a static
perspective, resource-based theory has focused on the result rather than on the
process of building competitive advantage. Organizational learning, however, is
as much a process as an outcome. Although Dierickx and Cool (1989) identified 43
the need to include time in the discussion, there have been no suggestions as to
how time should be incorporated into the resource-based model. As a
consequence, the potential contribution of time-dependent resources or
capabilities like organizational learning to competitive advantage has been
ignored.
Third, an appropriate working definition of the sustainability of competitive
advantage is lacking. For example, Barney states that a firm is said to enjoy a
sustained competitive advantage, when it is implementing a value creating
strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential
competitors and when these other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of
this strategy (Barney, 1991, p. 102, italics in original). This definition
emphasizes that sustained competitive advantage does not depend on the
period of calendar time over which a firm enjoys a measurable competitive
advantage. Rather, his definition focuses on the duplication of competitors
actions: a competitive advantage is sustained only if it continues to exist
after efforts to duplicate that advantage have ceased. In this sense, this
definition of sustained competitive advantage is an equilibrium definition
(Barney, 1991, p. 102).
This equilibrium definition of sustained competitive advantage is
problematic for two reasons. First, it is impossible to know with certainty that
all current and potential competitors have ceased to attempt to duplicate ones
competitive advantage or will not seek to do so in the future. Second, despite
Barneys inclusion of capabilities in the broad definition of resources, his
equilibrium definition of sustainable competitive advantage focuses on
outcomes and precludes the modelling and measurement of processes. In other
words, the equilibrium definition does not recognize the dynamic nature of
processes related to continuous improvement or organizational learning.
Firms often derive competitive advantage from resources (e.g. new
knowledge and capabilities) which have been developed based on lessons from
prior experiences and over time. Competitive advantage derived from such
resources might be sustained because other firms which attempt to duplicate
them do not have the necessary organizational knowledge, the learning
capability, or the time required to accumulate them. Given the dynamic nature
of the pursuit of competitive advantage, we believe that the sustainability of
such an advantage must be defined in dynamic, time-sensitive terms. Thus, in
the following section, we extend the resource-based view to address these
limitations and incorporate the dynamics of organizational learning.
JOCM An enhanced resource-based model
9,6 Barney has defined organizational resources to include, all assets, capabilities,
organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc.
controlled by a firm and that enable it to conceive of and implement strategies
that are efficient and effective (Barney, 1991, p. 101). We begin with this broad
definition for it suggests the study of how various resources come together and
44 interact to provide competitive advantage in a given situation.

Target resources
Competitive advantage is commonly measured in terms of comparative
organizational performance, primarily using such measures as profitability
ratios (Clemons and Kimbrough, 1986; Porter, 1985), market share (Wiseman,
1988a), etc. Given the broad definition of resource, profits, which may provide
capital for investment in the form of retained earnings, and market share, which
may provide additional market power, may be considered resources of the firm
as well as measures of performance. Hence, competitive advantage can be
viewed as the relative advantage a firm gains on one particular resource (such
as profitability or market share) by virtue of its ability to capitalize on other
resources. We refer to a resource on which competitive advantage is measured
at a given point in time as a target resource.
The target resources of a firm can change from time to time, as firms view
their competitive needs differently depending on various economic conditions.
For example, in a growth economy, market share may be given priority, while in
a weak economy, profitability may become most important. In short, at various
points along the path to superior performance, different measures of
competitive advantage may dominate strategic choices. Importantly, at any
point on this path, competitive advantages achieved on intermediate resources
contribute to competitive advantage measured subsequently on different target
resources.

Strategic resources
A strategic resource is defined as any resource which is capable of providing a
firm with a competitive advantage. According to RBT, such resources are
valuable, tend to be scarce, and are typically difficult to imitate or substitute for.
In its simplest articulation, therefore, RBT suggests that competitive advantage
is a function of a strategic resource. For example, it has been suggested that
SABRE, American Airlines online reservation system, is a strategic resource
which has provided the company with a competitive advantage measured in
terms of profitability.

Resource bundles
In reality, it is difficult to find situations in which competitive advantage is
derived exclusively from a single strategic resource. More often, it is a collection
of varied resources which together provide competitive advantage, referred to
here as a resource bundle (Barney, 1991).
 The number and type of resources in the bundle may vary, as may their An integrative
individual value measured in terms of each resources individual contribution model
to the target resource. Depending on the particular target resource, certain
resources in the bundle may attain prominence based on their contribution and
strategic nature. As the target resource changes, a different configuration of
resources may be required to achieve the maximum competitive advantage
possible. 45
Resource-based theory, then, suggests the case in which competitive
advantage is derived from a bundle of strategic resources which individually
and directly contribute to competitive advantage. For example, Southwest
Airlines competitive advantage in the US airline industry is arguably the result
of a number of strategic resources including its single aircraft-type fleet (which
reduces overall costs), its motivated and flexible workforce (which increases
productivity), and its reputation for on-time performance (which increases
sales) (Kling and Smith, 1995).

Resource interactions
Beyond their individual contributions to competitive advantage, resources may
interact and have impact on the target resource by creating new and often
intangible resources. These new resources may be labelled quasi-resources,
whose contribution to competitive advantage is separately measurable. The
concept of a quasi-resource is based on the notion of synergy among resources:
that is, the potential contribution to competitive advantage from a bundle of
resources is greater than the sum of the contribution from each individual
resource in the bundle. Kling and Smith (1995) have noted that the Turn Team
is an excellent example of how Southwest Airlines resources complement each
other and jointly contribute to the firms overall performance. The fact that all
Southwests planes are Boeing 737s allows ground and flight crews to routinize
and standardize gateway, fuelling, and baggage loading activities. The use of
smaller, less congested airports minimizes gate-holds and the time spent in
queues on the airfield, and the flexibility and commitment of Southwests
employees makes minimizing the time between arrival and departure a spirited
challenge for the Turn Team. Synergy between these resources results in a
gate turn-around time averaging 15-20 minutes compared to an industry
average of 50-60 minutes, translating into greater service and lower costs.

Enabling resources
It is also possible for the value of a strategic resource to be enhanced by the
influence of a second resource, without this second resource directly
contributing to competitive advantage. In such cases, the second resource or
enabling resource plays a catalytic role by enhancing the value of a strategic
resource, thereby contributing indirectly to competitive advantage. This
enhancement might take the form of enabling the process by which the primary
strategic resource is acquired or deployed. Alternately, the enabling resource
JOCM might enhance the value of a strategic resource by providing the strategic
9,6 resource with rare, firm-specific, and/or inimitable characteristics.
As an example, TWA Getaway Vacations, Inc., provides customized tours at
the prices of standard vacation packages (Pine, 1993). They use their market
share advantage (a strategic resource) to purchase in bulk various components
of tours (airline seats, hotel rooms, entertainment options, etc.) at low cost.
46 Getaway then uses widely available database technology to mix and match
these tour components to fit individual customer needs. Thus, Getaway uses
information technology that is not in and of itself strategic (it is valuable, but
not rare or inimitable) to effectively deploy its true strategic resource: the ability
to purchase low cost tour components. In this way, information technology here
serves as an enabling resource.

Time-lagged resource effects

To this point, the impact on a target resource (the measure of competitive
advantage) has been assumed to exist at a given point in time as a function of
the firms configuration of strategic and enabling resources at that same point
in time. However, it is likely that the value of a strategic resource acquired at a
given point in time will be greater at some later date, after the resource is
successfully deployed, and that its value can continue to increase over time as a
result of experience or learning effects (Lieberman, 1987). For example, profit
(in the form of retained earnings) is not only a measure of competitive
advantage; it also represents a financial resource for subsequent investment.
Similarly, investments which Intel has made in research for microprocessor
development has resulted not only in new processors, but also an increased
capability in processor design. Each successive generation of processors is
based on learning from previous development efforts and Intels development
capability continuously improves.
This suggests that a resource-based competitive advantage can be self-
reinforcing (or, with negative terms, self-destructive). Importantly, a time-based
modelling of resource impact is required to allow for the exploration of the
impact on competitive advantage of intangible, capability-based resources such
as absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and organizational learning
(Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990).
The general components of this enhanced resource-based model are
summarized mathematically in Table I. The specification of resource
interactions and time-lagged resource effects represent the major enhancements
to previously articulated resource-based models.

Organizational learning and competitive advantage

Within the resource-based view, the sustainability of competitive advantage is
thought to depend on the acquisition and maintenance of a superior resource
configuration. Unfortunately, current articulations of the theory rely on
equilibrium definitions of sustainable competitive advantage and therefore fail
to capture the advantages to be derived from dynamic organizational learning.
Element Representation Explanation
An integrative
model
Strategic TR(t) = f{R1(t)} R1(t) is a strategic resource and TR(t) is a
resources target resource (or resource on which
competitive advantage is measured) at time t
Resource TR(t) = f{R1(t),,Rn(t)} R1(t),,Rn(t) represents the bundle of
bundles strategic resources that contribute to 47
competitive advantage at a particular point
in time
Resource TR(t) = f{R1(t), R2(t), R1*R2(t), R1(t)*R2(t) represents the interaction
interactions , Rn(t)} between two strategic resources or a
quasi-resource
Enabling TR(t) = f{R1(t), R1(t)*R2(t), R1 is the strategic resource, R2 is the enabling
resources , Rn(t)} resource; R2 does not appear as an
independent term in the equation
Time-lagged TR(t) = f{R1(t), R1(t 1),, R1(t n) represents a strategic resource in
effects R1(t n)} previous time periods. Note that time-lagged
terms of the target resource, as well as Table I.
resource interaction terms, could be included An enhanced resource-
in this equation based model

Recalling that competitive advantage is measured in terms of target resources,

gains made in the target resource can be redeployed to contribute to stronger, or
even new, sources of competitive advantage. In other words, a firm can redeploy
gains in the target resource to reconfiguring its resource base to better fit its
particular competitive context. This continuous adaptation is at the heart of
organizational learning.
Purposeful resource reconfiguration requires change in the causal map
retained by the organization. Researchers have distinguished between cognition
development and behavioural development (Daft and Weick, 1984; Fiol and
Lyles, 1985; Schein, 1983). Changes in an organizations causal map are
cognition development, while changes in organizational response patterns are
behavioural development. Organizational learning includes changes in both of
these dimensions cognition and behaviour (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). Importantly,
behavioural development can occur without any associated cognition
development and vice versa. However, to effectively build sustained competitive
advantage, both cognition development and behavioural development are
required. The firm must understand how its resource base should be
reconfigured (change in causal map) and be able to execute the reconfiguration
and operate under the new conditions (change in organizational behaviour).
Based on the extent of cognitive and behavioural change, researchers have
categorized learning into different levels: single-loop and double-loop (Argyris
and Schon, 1978); or lower- and higher-level learning (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). In
most cases of redeployment of target resources, a higher level of learning would
JOCM be required since it calls for adjusting the overall rules and norms rather than
9,6 specific activities or behaviours alone.
In general, then, sustained competitive advantage may result either when
other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of a firms strategy because of
the firms unique resource configuration, or when the firm is continuously
developing its ability to better exploit its resource configuration which by
48 itself may not be significantly different from that of its competitors. Sustainable
competitive advantage is achieved when the firm is successful in staying ahead
of the competition by continuously manipulating the mix of resources in its
resource bundle and redeploying advantages gained on one target resource to
derive advantage on another resource. In short, organizational learning can
sustain competitive advantages which otherwise might be easily negated. In the
remainder of this section, we support this contention with examples drawn
from the debate over the potential of information technology (IT) to provide
sustainable competitive advantage.

Information technology as an enabler of organizational learning

The rise of IT has driven a great deal of speculation, theorizing, and
investigation regarding the potential this technology has for providing
companies with competitive advantage (cf. Bakos and Treacy, 1986; Banker and
Kauffman, 1988; Cash et al., 1992; Copeland and McKenney, 1988; Ives and
Learmoth, 1984; McFarlan, 1984; Porter and Millar, 1985; Wiseman and
MacMillan, 1984). IT researchers have maintained that by adopting specific
firm strategies and ensuring favourable industrial conditions, sustainable
competitive advantage can be achieved (Clemons and Row, 1991; Feeney and
Ives, 1990; Kettinger et al., 1994).
In contrast, resource-based theorists have challenged the ability of IT to
provide a sustainable competitive advantage (cf. Barney, 1991). As mentioned
previously, RBT suggests that for a resource to provide sustained competitive
advantage, it must be valuable, rare, non-substitutable, and imperfectly
imitable. While few would argue the value of IT, strategy scholars have
questioned whether IT enjoys the other three characteristics necessary of a
resource capable of providing sustainable competitive advantage. Information
technology is less and less rare, can often be easily imitated, and may be
substituted for. Thus, it has been argued that opportunities for strategic uses of
IT are rare; more often than not, investments in IT become strategic necessities
rather than sources of sustainable competitive advantage (Vitale, 1986).
We believe that current resource-based arguments against the strategic
potential of IT result from a static, rather than a dynamic, analysis of the
question. The enhanced resource-based model described earlier enables us to
demonstrate how IT can contribute to sustained competitive advantage
through the process of organizational learning. Information technology is most
likely to contribute to sustainable competitive advantage through its interaction
with other resources. As many of these resource effects are time-lagged,
organizational learning becomes a critical link in exploiting initial advantages
gained on target resources sustaining these advantages, as illustrated in the An integrative
following examples. model
Automatic teller machines (ATMs) were first introduced by Citibank in the
early 1970s (Glaser, 1988). The introduction of ATMs represented an innovative
application of information technology. They provided Citibank with an
immediate competitive advantage, measured by large numbers of new
customers moving their accounts to Citibank to take advantage of the 49
convenience offered by ATMs.
Resource-based theorists would be quick to point out that the competitive
advantage Citibank gained from ATMs was short-lived. Wiseman (1988b) has
noted that the introduction of ATMs began a pattern of IT-based attack and
counter-attack in the banking industry, a pattern which demonstrated a lack of
sustainability. Indeed, Eckerson (1988) has suggested that the widespread use
of ATMs has eliminated many competitive advantages. It is argued that, rather
than providing a sustainable competitive advantage, ATMs have become an
expensive necessity in the banking industry.
From an OL perspective, however, those who introduced ATMs early have
learned from the experience and are typically those on the offensive in the
attack/counter-attack pattern described by Wiseman (1988b). Citibank has
maintained a reputation as an innovator in the banking industry, and its
investment in a proprietary ATM network (as compared to shared networks)
has enhanced its ability to provide unique customer services with resultant
customer loyalty (Eckerson, 1988). Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that
learning has played a role in extending the benefits which Citibank derived
from its initial introduction of ATMs, first by creating a quasi-resource (its
image as an innovator), and later by taking advantage of its lead in technology
to create specialized service features.
Many other examples might be used to demonstrate that IT can contribute
directly or through interaction with other resources to target resource gains.
However, the sustainability of these gains is most likely when the initial gains
are redeployed to reconfigure the firms resource bundle so that new competitive
advantages can be generated. It is this process, rather than any individual gain,
which creates sustainability.
In redeploying target resource gains and reconfiguring resource bundles, the
firm is in fact redefining its way of competing in the market. This may either be
through improving the way current strategies are implemented single-loop
learning or through redefining its theory-in-use or basic operating
assumptions double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978). We believe that,
in general, the higher the level of learning achieved, the more likely learning-
related competitive advantages will prove sustainable.
Lower-level learning generally leads to change in operating routines without
any accompanying change in higher level business rules (Fiol and Lyles, 1985).
Such learning occurs in organizational contexts which are well understood and
with comparatively lower levels of uncertainty (Duncan, 1974). Nevertheless,
JOCM there are many examples in the management literature to suggest that IT can
9,6 contribute to sustained competitive advantage through single-loop learning.
For example, at Otis Elevator Company, IT supported (interacted with) a
centralized organizational structure to provide competitive advantage through
horizontal co-ordination (Stoddard, 1987). The Otisline information system, an
IT resource, enabled the firm to centralize elevator maintenance operation and
50 exploit scale advantages. While the direct benefits associated with this were
efficient use of maintenance personnel and better service response time, the IT
interaction also resulted in a quasi-resource. The firm was able to establish an
organizational climate in which maintenance information was shared between
its geographical and business units, leading to the development of an
integrated knowledge base of design problems and improvement solutions. As
Nevis et al. (1995) have identified, accessibility of information and open
communication within the organization creates a climate of openness that is a
critical facilitator of OL. The organizational learning which ensued enabled
Otis not only to improve on their product, but also capture greater market share
by providing better maintenance guarantee terms than its competitors.
In contrast, higher-level learning (double-loop learning) results in a
significant change in the causal map maintained by the organization. The
context for such higher levels of learning is typically high environmental
complexity and ambiguity. Since the learning achieved is more time and
resource dependent, the value and sustainability of the resulting competitive
advantage is higher.
For example, AES Corporation, an independent power producer founded in
1981 (Smith and Sims, 1995) has made investments in IT specifically for the
purpose of helping it understand its business environment. In its early stages,
before it began generating revenues from power production, AES provided
energy consulting services based on systems dynamics modelling of the energy
sector a computationally intensive task. Currently, AESs strategic planning
group continues its sector modelling and consulting services not primarily as
a source of revenues, but as a way of learning about and testing its assumptions
regarding its business environment.
AES has also invested in the development and maintenance of a database of
potential customers which includes every utility company in the USA and
many in other countries. The utilities are continually ranked against criteria
generated by AESs sector models supplemented by a great deal of market
research. When the Hawaii Electric Company (HECO) emerged as the highest-
ranked potential customer several times in a row, AES challenged the
conventional wisdom that one could not put a coal-fired energy plant in
Hawaii and made a proposal to HECO. As of 1995, AESs Hawaii plant has
been in operation for nearly two years.
AES has used IT to help it change its conception of its competitive
environment, to keep its causal map current, and to seize opportunities before
they are recognized by competitors. IT has served as an enabling resource to
AESs strategic planning group. We suggest that it is AESs ability to see its
environment clearly and respond quickly to changes in the environment which An integrative
are the source of its competitive advantage. model
In all these examples, the firms involved did not rest on the initial advantages
gained from IT; instead, they redeployed those advantages and combined them
with their ability to learn to create new competitive advantages. We are certain
that similar examples based on resources other than IT could be identified.
Thus, we conclude that current articulations of resource-based theory are 51
limited to the extent that they do not capture the contribution to competitive
advantage of resources which can be gained through the dynamics of
organizational learning, not to mention the isolation of OL capability as a
strategic resource in and of itself. Clearly, firms can generate and sustain
competitive advantage by effectively reinvesting advantages gained on target
resources to reconfigure its resource bundle as well as its understanding of its
environment to stay ahead of the competition.

Conclusion
In this paper, we made the case that organizational learning is an important
organizational capability which should be considered a strategic resource. We
suggested that current articulations of resource-based theory are limited by a
static perspective, with the result that they have failed to incorporate the
dynamics of organizational learning despite a definition of strategic
resources broad enough to include OL capability. We then provided an
enhanced resource-based model that explicitly allows for learning dynamics
through resource interactions and time-lagged resource effects. Finally, by
providing examples of how IT resources can contribute to competitive
advantage, we have demonstrated how the dynamics of OL result in sustained
competitive advantage from an arguably common resource.
Although the anecdotal nature of the examples provided reflect the
developmental state of the integrative model, we believe that the model has
great potential for providing understanding of how OL can be incorporated into
the resource-based view. Additional research will be needed to fully
operationalize the model and test it with empirical data.

References and further reading

Amit, R. and Shoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), Strategic assets and organizational rent, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley, London.
Arrow, K. (1962), The implications of learning by doing, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29,
pp. 166-70.
Bakos, J.Y. and Treacy, M.E. (1986), Information technology and corporate strategy: a research
perspective, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 107-19.
Banker, R.D. and Kauffman, R.J. (1988), Strategic contributions of information technology: an
empirical study of ATM networks, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on
Information Systems, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 141-50.
Barney, J.B. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
JOCM Cash, J.I., McFarlan, F.W., McKeeney, J.L. and Applegate, L. (1992), Corporate Information
Systems Management, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
9,6 Castanias, R.P. and Helfat, C.E. (1991), Managerial resources and rents, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 155-71.
Clemons, E.K. and Kimbrough, S.O. (1986), Information systems, telecommunications and their
effects on industrial organization, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Information Systems, San Diego, CA, pp. 99-108.
52 Clemons, E.K. and Row, M.C. (1991), Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 275-92.
Cohen, W.M and Levinthal, D.A. (1989), Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D, The
Economic Journal, Vol. 99 No. 397, pp. 569-96.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.
Copeland, D.G. and McKenney, J.L. (1988), Airline reservation systems: lessons from history,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 353-70.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 284-95.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-11.
Dodgson, M. (1993), Organizational learning: a review of some literature, Organization Studies,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-94.
Duncan, R.B. (1974), Modifications in decision structure in adapting to the environment: some
implications for organizational learning, Decision Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 705-25.
Eckerson, W. (1988), Costly ATMs a must for bank industry, Network World, Vol. 5 No. 37,
pp. 23-36.
Feeney, D.F. and Ives, B. (1990), In search of sustainability: reaping long-term advantage from
investments in information technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7,
pp. 27-32.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13.
Flood, P.C. and Olian, J.D. (1996), Human resource strategies for world-class competitive
capability, in Flood, P., Gannon, M. and Paauwe, J. (Eds), Managing without Traditional
Methods: International Innovations in Human Resource Management, Addison-Wesley,
Wokingham, pp. 3-30.
Glaser, P.F. (1988), Using technology for competitive advantage: the ATM experience at
Citicorp, in Guile, B.R. and Quinn, J.B. (Eds), Managing Innovation: Cases from the Services
Industry, National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 108-14.
Ives, B. and Learmoth, G. P. (1984), Information systems as a competitive weapon,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1193-201.
Kettinger, W.J., Grover, V., Guha, S. and Segars, A.H. (1994), Strategic information systems
revisited: a study in sustainability and performance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Kling, J.A. and Smith, K.A. (1995), The competitive advantage of Southwest Airlines: a resource-
based analysis of its endurance and implications, Journal of Transportation Management,
Vol. 7 No. 1.
Lieberman, M. (1987), The learning curve, diffusion and competitive strategy, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 441-52.
Lippman, S.A. and Rumelt, R.P. (1982), Uncertain imitability: an analysis of interfirm differences
in efficiency under competition, The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 413-38.
McFarlan, F.W. (1984), Information technology changes the way you compete, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 62, May-June, pp. 98-103.
Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. (1995), Understanding organizations as learning An integrative
systems, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 73-85.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993), The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view,
model
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-91.
Pine, B.J. II (1993), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Anchor, Garden City, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.
53
Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E. (1985), How information gives you competitive advantage, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 63, July-August, pp. 149-60.
Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R. (1990), Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable
competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 88-102.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984), Toward a strategic theory of the firm, in Lamb, R. (Ed.), Competitive
Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 556-70.
Schein, E.H. (1983), Organizational culture, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Senge, P. (1990), The leaders new work: building learning organizations, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Shrivastava, P. and Grant, J.H. (1985), Models of strategic decision making, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Smith, K.A. and Sims, H.P. Jr. (1995), Team-based strategy making, in Foster, L. (Ed.), Advances
in Applied Business Strategy, Vol. 4, pp. 143-66, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Stoddard, D. (1987), Otisline, Harvard Business School Case Services, No. 9-186-304, Harvard
University, Boston, MA.
Teece, D.J. (1986), Firm boundaries, technological innovation, and strategic management, in
Thomas, L.G. III (Ed.), The Economics of Strategic Planning, Lexington Books, Lexington,
MA, pp. 187-99.
Vitale, M.R. (1986), The growing risks of information systems success, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 327-34.
Williams, K.E. and Kotnour, T.G. (1993), An electronic performance support system for
organizational learning, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25 Nos. 1-4, pp. 93-7.
Wiseman, C. (1988a), Strategic Information Systems, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Wiseman, C. (1988b), Attack and counterattack: the new game in information technology,
Planning Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 6-12.
Wiseman, C. and MacMillan, I. (1984), Creating competitive weapons from information systems,
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 42-9.
This article has been cited by:

1. Agnieszka Zakrzewska-Bielawska. 2016. Perceived mutual impact of strategy and organizational structure: Findings from the
high-technology enterprises. Journal of Management & Organization 1-24. [CrossRef]
2. Xiaoqing Li, Yu Zheng, Catherine L. Wang. 2015. Inter-firm collaboration in new product development in Chinese
pharmaceutical companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management . [CrossRef]
3. Ulrike de Brentani, Elko J. Kleinschmidt. 2015. The Impact of Company Resources and Capabilities on Global New Product
Program Performance. Project Management Journal 46:10.1002/pmj.2015.46.issue-1, 12-29. [CrossRef]
4. Catherine KillenOrganizational Agility through Project Portfolio Management 1-14. [CrossRef]
5. George Z. Peng, Paul W. Beamish. 2014. MNC subsidiary size and expatriate control: Resource-dependence and learning
perspectives. Journal of World Business 49, 51-62. [CrossRef]
6. Adam S. Maiga, Anders Nilsson, Fred A. Jacobs. 2013. Extent of managerial IT use, learning routines, and firm performance:
A structural equation modeling of their relationship. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14, 297-320.
[CrossRef]
7. Adriana Martnez, Jos A. BelsoMartnez, Francisco MsVerd. 2012. Industrial clusters in Mexico and Spain. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 25:5, 657-681. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Catherine P. Killen, Kam Jugdev, Nathalie Drouin, Yvan Petit. 2012. Advancing project and portfolio management research:
Applying strategic management theories. International Journal of Project Management 30, 525-538. [CrossRef]
9. Jim Andersn. 2012. A resourcebased taxonomy of manufacturing MSMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research 18:1, 98-122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Zong Dai. 2012. Toward a learningbased view of innovation. Competitiveness Review 22:1, 18-27. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
11. Shu-Hui Chuang. 2011. The Relationships Among Knowledge Types, Organisational Learning, and Performance. Journal
of Information & Knowledge Management 10, 169-181. [CrossRef]
12. Jim Andersn. 2011. Strategic resources and firm performance. Management Decision 49:1, 87-98. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
13. Matti J. Haverila. 2011. Company related variables and their impact on the NPD outcome in the context of international
markets in Finnish high-technology companies. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 22, 94-101. [CrossRef]
14. Sren Salomo, Elko J. Keinschmidt, Ulrike De Brentani. 2010. Managing New Product Development Teams in a Globally
Dispersed NPD Program. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27:10.1111/jpim.2010.27.issue-7, 955-971. [CrossRef]
15. Linda Too, Michael Harvey, Eric Too. 2010. Globalisation and corporate real estate strategies. Journal of Corporate Real
Estate 12:4, 234-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Susita Asree, Mohamed Zain, Mohd Rizal Razalli. 2010. Influence of leadership competency and organizational culture
on responsiveness and performance of firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22:4, 500-516.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Raphael Klein, Uzi Haan, Albert I. Goldberg. 2010. Corporate Exploration Competence and the Entrepreneurial Enterprise.
Journal of the Knowledge Economy 1, 86-116. [CrossRef]
18. Ulrike de Brentani, Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Sren Salomo. 2010. Success in Global New Product Development: Impact
of Strategy and the Behavioral Environment of the Firm. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27:10.1111/
jpim.2010.27.issue-2, 143-160. [CrossRef]
19. Anthony McDonnell, Patrick Gunnigle, Jonathan Lavelle. 2010. Learning transfer in multinational companies: explaining
inter-organisation variation. Human Resource Management Journal 20:10.1111/hrmj.2010.20.issue-1, 23-43. [CrossRef]
20. Karim Moustaghfir. 2009. How knowledge assets lead to a sustainable competitive advantage: are organizational capabilities
a missing link?. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7, 339-355. [CrossRef]
21. Giovanni Schiuma. 2009. The managerial foundations of knowledge assets dynamics. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 7, 290-299. [CrossRef]
22. Ricardo Chiva, Joaqun Alegre. 2009. Investment in Design and Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Design
Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26:10.1111/jpim.2009.26.issue-4, 424-440. [CrossRef]
23. Sren Salomo, Katrin Talke, Nanja Strecker. 2008. Innovation Field Orientation and Its Effect on Innovativeness and Firm
Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25:10.1111/jpim.2008.25.issue-6, 560-576. [CrossRef]
24. Catherine P. Killen, Robert A. Hunt, Elko J. Kleinschmidt. 2008. Learning investments and organizational capabilities.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 1:3, 334-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Doren D. Chadee, Billy Pang. 2008. Technology strategy and performance: a study of information technology service providers
from selected Asian countries. Service Business 2, 109-126. [CrossRef]
26. Massimo Franco, Stefania Mariano. 2007. Information technology repositories and knowledge management processes. VINE
37:4, 440-451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Ruth Alas, Wei Sun. 2007. Organizational changes in Chinese companies: a resourcebased view. Chinese Management Studies
1:4, 225-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Elko J. Kleinschmidt, Ulrike de Brentani, Sren Salomo. 2007. Performance of Global New Product Development Programs:
A Resource-Based View. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24:10.1111/jpim.2007.24.issue-5, 419-441. [CrossRef]
29. Jim Andersn. 2007. How and what to imitate? A sequential model for the imitation of competitive advantages. Strategic
Change 16:10.1002/jsc.v16:6, 271-279. [CrossRef]
30. Juan C. Real, Antonio Leal, Jos L. Roldn. 2006. Information technology as a determinant of organizational learning and
technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing Management 35, 505-521. [CrossRef]
31. Thomas D. Kuczmarski. 2006. Rejoinders to "Establishing an NPD Best Practices Framework". Journal of Product Innovation
Management 23:10.1111/jpim.2006.23.issue-2, 117-127. [CrossRef]
32. Susana Prez Lpez, Jos Manuel Montes Pen, Camilo Jos Vazquez Ords. 2005. Organizational learning as a determining
factor in business performance. The Learning Organization 12:3, 227-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Jong-min Choe. 2004. Impact of management accounting information and AMT on organizational performance. Journal of
Information Technology 19, 203-214. [CrossRef]
34. Jong-min Choe. 2004. The relationships among management accounting information, organizational learning and production
performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13, 61-85. [CrossRef]
35. Pilar Jerez Gmez, Jos J. Cspedes Lorente, Ramn Valle Cabrera. 2004. Training practices and organisational learning
capability. Journal of European Industrial Training 28:2/3/4, 234-256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. JonArild Johannessen, Johan Olaisen, Bjrn Olsen. 1999. Strategic use of information technology for increased innovation
and performance. Information Management & Computer Security 7:1, 5-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Karim Moustaghfir, Giovanni SchiumaKnowledge Assets and Value Creation Dynamics 30-49. [CrossRef]
38. Giovanni SchiumaManaging and Measuring Knowledge Assets Dynamics for Business Value Creation in Organisations 13-29.
[CrossRef]
39. John GallaugherStrategic Positioning and Resource-Based Thinking 92-103. [CrossRef]