Talk:Resource-based view

Archives (Index)

2011 2014 2017 2018 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Why let it go?

On Jan 9,2007 a new and inactive editor added 14000 characters to the article. None of it included proper references. It was all footnoted properly, leading me to believe that it was an academic paper cut-n-pasted into the article. I could find no other trace of it online. There are fifteen mirror copies, though. As time has gone by, some of those footnotes have become references. Because we are talking about printed sources, I'm willing to bet they were almost plagiarized.
In my opinion, this article is not an encyclopedia entry, but a handy resource for people writing college papers. My suggested solution is to roll it back to Dec 27, 2006. If there is valuable stuff from the last ten years, an editor can look in the history, fix it, and put it back in. Otherwise, let it go. Rhadow (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Expansion and update

I cannot agree that this article should be rolled back or "let go." The RBV concept is already included in other encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management (see:https://www.elgaronline.com/view/nlm-book/9781783475452/C298.xml); the World Heritage Encyclopedia, (see: http://community.worldheritage.org/articles/eng/Resource-based_view); the Wiley Encyclopedia of Management; Encyclopedia of Management Theory; Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (where it is included as part of the entry on "knowledge management") and increasingly appears in business dictionaries, reference works and the like. If anyone is in any doubt about the importance of this concept, please do an Advanced Google search" and use the search terms, Resource-based view" in one line and Encyclopedia in other line of the search tool bar - you will soon find literally thousands of entries in reputable encyclopedias. If the article also serves as a handy resource for college students, then that is a bonus. RBV is an important concept in management and marketing, and as such should be retained in Wikipedia.

This article is in the process of being updated and expanded. I have included a host of high quality references, modified existing content where necessary and added new content to reflect current thinking. There are some concerns about copyvios in some of the content that has been added previously. I am doing my best to clean this up, adding reliable references as I work through it. BronHiggs (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Much respect for the work you're doing here, but note that the World Heritage Encyclopedia is a mirror of Wikipedia. They're not the most compliant mirror - the attribution is often obscured depending on which one of their 100 or so sites you hit. Kuru (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Edith Penrose and RBV

[Copied from User talk page]

In relation to a recent edit to the article on Resource-based view, which was reverted please note the following:

(1) The prose in the original must be paraphrased (written in your own words) rather than copied directly or closely framed as in the original, lest it be considered a copyright violation;

(2) Blogs, even blogs maintained by academics, are not generally considered to be quality/reliable sources. The main problem with blogs is that the content does not undergo any peer review. In the absence of any gatekeeping role, blogs, have a tendency, to represent minority viewpoints, alternative perspectives or ocassionally extreme veiws, that for whatever reason, cannot get published in reputable books or articles where rigorous review processes are in place. Although Wikipedia has no general ban on blogs, they must be treated carefully and the context is important.

(3) Edith Penrose's contribution to RBV has been the subject of several scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals where the conclusion is that she was indirectly influential in theories of comparative advantage, but does "NOT make direct contributions to modern resource-based thinking."

BronHiggs (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent revisions to the article suggest that scholars generally hold that Edith Penrose's contributions to RBV, were pioneering and substantive. I think that using the term, generally is drawing too long a bow, and here's why.

As I understand the literature in this area:

* In 2004, two US scholars, Yasemin Y. Kor and Joseph T. Mahoney, published a paper in which they argued that Edith Penrose both directly and indirectly influenced the modern resource-based view of strategic management.

* In their paper, Kor and Mahoney expressly challenge the more conventional view that Penrose's influence was largely indirect. These authors particularly take issue with papers published by Rugman and Verbeke (2002, 2004).

* Since then, other scholars have revisited the contributions of Edith Penrose, arguing that she was a precursor or antecedent to RBV or as a building block for the theories of RBV that followed some 40 years later.

So, in summary, we have two scholars casting Penrose as a neglected pioneer of RBV. Only a handful of papers have been published on this subject, some aligning with Kor and Mahoney (in favour of giving Penrose a larger role as founder of RBV ); some supporting Rugman and Verbeke that Penrose's contribution was largely indirect; and yet others adopting some sort of middle ground by acknowledging Penrose's important contributions to the field of strategy, but without giving her a role as a pioneer of the RBV literature. The fact that there are only a handful of papers on this subject, already suggests that the subject is not considered worthy of investigation and the fact that within those papers there are a diverse range of views, does not add up to a consensus view.

I just can't see how any review of this body of literature can result in a sweeping statement to the effect that scholars generally hold that.... To make such a claim based on a dozen or so articles with very mixed views, is a gross misinterpretation of the state of play.

I also question whether an article about Resource-based view is an appropriate place to carry out a discussion concerning a continuing and unresolved debate about one theorist's contributions to the broader field of strategy and value creation. None of this is to suggest that Penrose did not make important contributions to the field of strategic management. Indeed, she was already mentioned in the history section of the article. However, I question the need for one entire paragraph, out of a total of five paragraphs in the history section to be devoted to this minority viewpoint. BronHiggs (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Classification of resources

Tangible assets are important for the resource-based view because they are the ways a company produces revenue. Tangible assets are the base of business’ activity and set limits on how the business can use its resources. The source was misquoted and therefore misleading. The cited source pointed out that tangible assets are used (or consumed) in producing revenue. This is quite different from stating that tangible assets are the way that companies produce revenue.

The RBV places a higher priority on intangible resources such as skills and capabilities which are not depleted through use, but rather improve with use. The resource-based view (RBV) is a managerial framework used to determine the strategic resources with the potential to deliver comparative advantage to a firm. These resources can be exploited by the firm in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. The original meaning was intended. RBV is primarily interested in how to identify and nurture comparative advantages – which in turn, lead to competitive advantages. The edit not only changed the meaning, but also led to an inadvertent circular argument (i.e. competitive advantages… can be exploited to achieve competitive advantages) which is not constructive and diminishes the value of the article.

175.32.56.121 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)