porter's five forces vs resource based view
DESCRIPTION
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES VS RESOURCE BASED VIEW A COMPARISONMohiuddin AsadMBA(UK), ACCA, CMA, CIA, CFE, FFA, CCSAIntroductionIn the following article, author has carried out a comparison and contrast of Porter’s 5 Forces Model of competitive advantage with “Resource based view”. The author has first explained both theories and then highlighted the similarities and differences between them, covering most important dimensions. Five forces model and Resource based viewIn the last two decades, one of the most important debates emerged in the field of strategic management is how firms achieve and sustain competitive advantage. This debate has led to two basic schools which can be classified as positioning school and resource based school. Five Forces model which represents positioning school was developed by Michael E. Porter in 1980. It is a framework which is generally used for the analysis of industry and development of business strategy. It is mainly based on the premise that a corporate strategy should meet the opportunities and threats in the organization’s outer environment. Porter identified five competitive forces that, according to him, shape every industry and every market. These forces determine the intensity of competition and hence the profitability and attractiveness of an industry. According to this model, the objective of corporate strategy should be to manage these competitive forces in a way that improves the position of the organization. Porter described these five forces as: 1) Bargaining power of customers2) Bargaining power of suppliers3) Intensity of existing competitive rivalry 4) Threat of new entrants and 5) Threat of substitute products. The second school of thought is known as Resource based view. It suggests that Firms can earn sustainable super normal profits if they have superior resources and these resources should be Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Non substitutable. (Grant, R.M., 1991) The fundamental principle of the resource based view is that the basis for a competitive advantage of a firm lies primarily in the application of the bundle of valuable resources at the firm’s disposal (Werner felt, 1984; Rumelt, 1984). According to Fahy and Smithee (1999) “RBV starts with the assumption that the desired outcome of managerial effort within the firm is a sustainable competitive advantage (SCA). Achieving a SCA allows the firm to earn economic rents or above average returns. In turn, this focuses attention on how firms achieve and sustain advantages. The resource based view contends that the answer to this question lies in the possession of certain key resources, that is, resources that have characteristics such as value, barriers to duplication and appropriability. A sustainable competitive advantage can be obtained if the firm effectively deploys these resources in its product-markets. Therefore, the RBV emphasizes strategic choice, charging the firm’s management with the important tasks of identifying, developing and deploying key resources to maximize returns”. (Fahy and Smithee, 1999) Similarities and DifferencesFive forces model explains the firm’s strategy in relation to its product and market positioning, i.e. the products it makes and the market it serves. This model emphasizes the external impact on strategy development and suggests firms to evaluate those forces in an industry, which give rise to opportunities and threats. Consequently, the dominant strategy deals with choosing an appropriate industry and positioning the firm within that industry according to the five forces. In contrast, the resource based approach suggests that firms should position themselves strategically based on their valuable, rare, inimitable and non substitutable resources and capabilities rather than the products and services derived from those resources and capabilities. In RBV, resources and capabilities are considered as a root, from whiTRANSCRIPT
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
PORTER’S FIVE FORCES
VS
RESOURCE BASED VIEW
A COMPARISON
Mohiuddin Asad
MBA(UK), ACCA, CMA, CIA, CFE, FFA, CCSA
Mohiuddin Asad 11
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Introduction
In the following article, author has carried out a comparison and contrast of
Porter’s 5 Forces Model of competitive advantage with “Resource based view”. The
author has first explained both theories and then highlighted the similarities and
differences between them, covering most important dimensions.
Mohiuddin Asad 22
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Five forces model and Resource based view
In the last two decades, one of the most important debates emerged in the field of
strategic management is how firms achieve and sustain competitive advantage. This
debate has led to two basic schools which can be classified as positioning school and
resource based school. Five Forces model which represents positioning school was
developed by Michael E. Porter in 1980. It is a framework which is generally used for the
analysis of industry and development of business strategy. It is mainly based on the
premise that a corporate strategy should meet the opportunities and threats in the
organization’s outer environment. Porter identified five competitive forces that,
according to him, shape every industry and every market. These forces determine the
intensity of competition and hence the profitability and attractiveness of an industry.
According to this model, the objective of corporate strategy should be to manage these
competitive forces in a way that improves the position of the organization. Porter
described these five forces as:
1) Bargaining power of customers
2) Bargaining power of suppliers
3) Intensity of existing competitive rivalry
4) Threat of new entrants and
5) Threat of substitute products.
Mohiuddin Asad 33
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
The second school of thought is known as Resource based view. It suggests that Firms
can earn sustainable super normal profits if they have superior resources and these
resources should be Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Non substitutable. (Grant, R.M.,
1991) The fundamental principle of the resource based view is that the basis for a
competitive advantage of a firm lies primarily in the application of the bundle of
valuable resources at the firm’s disposal (Werner felt, 1984; Rumelt, 1984). According to
Fahy and Smithee (1999) “RBV starts with the assumption that the desired outcome of
managerial effort within the firm is a sustainable competitive advantage (SCA).
Achieving a SCA allows the firm to earn economic rents or above average returns. In
turn, this focuses attention on how firms achieve and sustain advantages. The resource
based view contends that the answer to this question lies in the possession of certain
key resources, that is, resources that have characteristics such as value, barriers to
duplication and appropriability. A sustainable competitive advantage can be obtained if
the firm effectively deploys these resources in its product-markets. Therefore, the RBV
emphasizes strategic choice, charging the firm’s management with the important tasks
of identifying, developing and deploying key resources to maximize returns”. (Fahy and
Smithee, 1999)
Mohiuddin Asad 44
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Similarities and Differences
Five forces model explains the firm’s strategy in relation to its product and market
positioning, i.e. the products it makes and the market it serves. This model emphasizes
the external impact on strategy development and suggests firms to evaluate those
forces in an industry, which give rise to opportunities and threats. Consequently, the
dominant strategy deals with choosing an appropriate industry and positioning the firm
within that industry according to the five forces. In contrast, the resource based
approach suggests that firms should position themselves strategically based on their
valuable, rare, inimitable and non substitutable resources and capabilities rather than
the products and services derived from those resources and capabilities. In RBV,
resources and capabilities are considered as a root, from which the firm derives various
products for various markets. Thus, in resource based view, strategy is focused on
leveraging resources and capabilities across many markets and products instead of
targeting specific products for precise markets. Hence, we can say that RBV is an inward
looking or Inside-Outside model whilst five forces is an outward looking or an Outside-
Inside model.
One of the fundamental differences in Porter’s five forces model and the Resource
based view is that they do not have the same unit of analysis. Porter’s five forces model
considers industry as a unit whereas resource based view chooses a firm or an individual
resource as a unit of analysis. However, looking at another dimension, both five forces
and RBV models are prescriptive in nature and assume that managers are rational. In
Mohiuddin Asad 55
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
the Five forces model, manager has the task to take the right decisions and choose
appropriate strategy to manage the five competitive forces in such a way that improves
the position of the organization, thus earning above average profits. However, in RBV,
strategy is not only about the cognitive ability of the managers and their ability to make
the correct decisions, but also about their ability to work creatively with the raw
material presented by their firm and their environment (Quinn, 1978;Mintzberg, 1987);
to respond appropriately when their firm’s organizational structure finds good strategies
(Burgelman, 1994); and to create decision structures and procedures that allow a firm to
respond to its environment adaptively (Bower, 1974; Levinthal, 1974). Thus, in RBV
managers have the entire tasks of identifying, developing and deploying key resources
to earn and sustain superior profits.
Another similarity in both models is that they both agree that firm’s ultimate goal is to
achieve sustainable competitive advantage. However, how can competitive advantage
be sustained is a matter of dispute. In Porter’s five forces model a competitive
advantage is sustained when it provides above-average returns in the long run. This is
contrary to RBV where competitive advantage is sustained when the efforts by
competitors to render the competitive advantage redundant, have ceased (Barney,
1991; Rumelt, 1984). When the imitative actions have come to an end without
disrupting the firm’s competitive advantage, the firm’s strategy can be called
sustainable.
Further, both resource based view and Porter’s five forces model assume that constant
above normal profits are possible. However, again the two models differ regarding the
Mohiuddin Asad 66
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
nature of the rents a firm can achieve. The RBV is an efficiency-based explanation of
performance differences; it is concerned with Ricardian rents resulting from the scarcity
of superior resources (Peteraf & Bergen, 2003) and quasi-rents or opportunity costs.
According to Peteraf and Barney (2003), “Superior resources are more efficient in the
sense that they enable a firm to produce more economically and better satisfy customer
wants” (Peteraf & Barney, 2003) On the contrary, Porter’s five forces approach
emphasizes the exercise of market power and monopoly-type rents as the sources of
performance differentials (Conner, 1991).
Some important aspects of similarity are exposed when we compare the individual
forces of five forces model with the prerequisites of resources in the resource based
view. There we recognize that much of the underlying concepts have great
resemblance. For instance, non substitutability of a resource in RBV is similar to the
threat of substitution in five forces and inimitability of resources in RBV resembles to
threat of new entrants in five forces. Likewise, “bargaining power of suppliers refers to
input markets” (Porter, 1991).
Proponents of both sides dispute on the link between resources and activities. The
proponents of five forces claim that resources represent an inherently intermediate
position in the chain of causality. That is, resources arise either from performing
activities over time, acquiring them from outside, or some combination of the two. Both
are dependent on prior managerial choices. On the contrary, the proponents of RBV
claim that its valuable, rare and inimitable and non substitutable resources of the firm
that lead to the activities, resulting in sustained competitive advantage.
Mohiuddin Asad 77
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Finally looking the two models from empirical test perspective, many critics feel that
Porter’s five forces model lacks empirical evidence to support his conclusions,
suggesting that it has not been well researched. In contrast, RBV is central to much
recent empirical work in strategy. In middle of 1990s, a four-year longitudinal study of
2800 US firms showed that, whilst industry conditions explained 4% of profitability
variation, individual firm resources explained 44% of profitability variation across firms
(Data Systems International, 2007). A more recent study in Spain, involving 1642 firms
found that industry conditions explained 3% and firm resources explained 36% of
performance variation (Data Systems International, 2007). However, there are many
other researchers who still think that there are no satisfactory empirical tests of the
Resource based view also (Arend, 2006). According to Armstrong and Shimizu (2007),
“only one study (Schilling & Steensma, 2002) attempts to capture the effects of rarity
(uniqueness) of resources and no study expressly attempts to capture the effects of non
substitutability”. (Armstrong & Shimizu, 2007).
Mohiuddin Asad 88
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Conclusion
The Porter’s five forces model emphasizes the actions, a firm can take to earn superior
profits by creating privileged market or industry positions against competitive forces
whereas the Resource based view emphasizes building competitive advantage through
capturing superior profits, stemming from fundamental firm-level resources and
capabilities. While both Porter’s five forces model and Resource based view may appear
to be different they are actually complementary when integrated. The industry structure
and position approach helps a firm to understand its competitive environment while the
resource-based view helps it to evaluate its ability to exploit strengths and respond to
identified weaknesses. In fact, according to Werner felt (1984), Porter’s framework and
the resource-based approach constitute the two sides of the same coin.
Thus the author suggests that both Porter’s five forces model and Resource based view
remain important and the choice should not be to choose one and discard the other but
rather the approach should be to integrate them and make use of their
complimentarity. Firms cannot ignore the industries within which they operate, but
neither can they afford to focus senselessly upon it at the expense of their internal
resources and miss opportunities to establish sustainable competitive advantage.
Mohiuddin Asad 99
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Bibliography
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors, Free Press, New York.
Werner felt, B. (1984), a resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 5, (April-June): pp. 171-180.
Rumelt, R. (1984), Towards a strategic theory of the firm, In Competitive Strategic
Management, Ed. Richard B. Lamb, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Fahy, J. and Smithee, A. (1999), “Strategic Marketing and the Resource Based View of
the Firm”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 10, 1999.
Porter, M. (1991), towards a dynamic theory of strategy, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 12, pp.95-117.
Mint berg, H. (1987), Crafting strategy, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 65 (4): pp. 66–75.
Quinn J. (1978), Strategic change: logical incrementalism, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 20(1): pp. 7–17.
Burgelman, R. (1994), "Fading memories: a process theory of strategic business exit in
dynamic environments", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39(1), pp.24-46.
Bower, J. (1970), Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of Corporate
Planning and Investment, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA,
Levinthal, D. (1997), Adaptation on rugged landscapes, Management Science, Vol. 43:
pp. 934–950.
Mohiuddin Asad 1010
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Barney, J. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17(1): pp. 99–120.
Peteraf, M. and Bergen, M. (2003), “Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: a
market-based and resource-based framework”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24,
pp. 1027-1041
Peteraf, M. and Barney, J. (2003), Unraveling The Resource-Based Tangle, Managerial
and Decision Economics, Special issue, Vol. 24(4), pp. 309-323.
Conner, K. (1991) “A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools
of Thought within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the
Firm?” Journal of Management, 1991, Vol. 17(1), pp.121-154.
Data Systems International, (2007) “The Resource-Based View of Strategy: Application
to the Agricultural Industry”, DSI/Asia and Pacific, July 2007.
Armstrong, C. and Shimizu, K. (2007) “Review of Approaches to Empirical Research on
the Resource-Based View of the Firm”, Journal of Management, December 2007, Vol.
33(6)
Arend, R. (2006) “Tests of the resource based view, Do the empirics have any clothes?”
Strategic Organization, November 2006, Vol. 4(4)
Schilling, M. and Steensma, H. (2002), disentangling the theories on firm boundaries: A
path model and empirical test, Organization Science, Vol. 13(4): pp. 387-40
Porter, M.E. (1991), "Towards a dynamic theory of strategy", Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 12
Mohiuddin Asad 1111
Five Forces Vs Resource based view – A comparison
Grant, R.M., (1991), the Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications
for Strategy Formulation, California Management Review, Vol. 33(3), pp. 114–135.
Mohiuddin Asad 1212