Competitive AdvantageSchulze (1994)

Competitive Advantage
Schulze (1994) observes two schools of thought in the resource-based strategy
literature – a structural school and a process school – and asserts several assumptions
made by these groups in explaining competitive advantage. Generically, Schulze
(1994) cites: 1) Conner (1991) – all resource-based perspectivists assume that
differences in product/service attributes (and therefore performance) are related to the differences in resources possessed or controlled by the firm; 2) Barney (1991) –
resources are heterogeneous across competing firms; and 3) Rumelt (1987) – firms are
rent seekers. Such firms seek returns in excess of the “normal” profit seeking
perspective, and these rents can be differentiated by their source. For instance, the difference between managerially produced rents versus those produced by labor.
Schulze (1994) posits two additional assumptions which differentiate each school
from the other. The structural school is characterized by the assumption that
competitive advantage is sustainable from resources that are rare, valuable, imperfectly mobile, and inimitable through substitution (Barney, 1991). The process school assumes that rents are available to the firm through managerial learning, development of new resources, and achieving a better match between the competitive environment and the capabilities of the firm resources (Schoemaker, 1990); aspects which directly implicate the managerial quality and discretion in the implementation of strategy.An implicit assumption of Conner (1991) is that competitive firms have differing inherent levels of efficacy with respect to their abilities to acquire critical resources.
Firm-idiosyncratic resources are a central concept to the resource-based view and
create a fundamental paradox with respect to generalizability of theory (Gibbert,
2006). Finkelstein and Peteraf (2007) also note that some environments and
organizations limit managerial discretion. Some organizations or industries offer
varying amounts of discretion depending upon their characteristics. A question arises
then, if through chance or external policy, the ability of firms to acquire scarce
resources was effectively equivalent, or non-idiosyncratic, would firm-by-firm
managerial and developmental effects still account for all differences in rent
production, or can the system of acquisition of resources account for these differences?
Such an industry exists where, as a matter of policy, both the number of resources
available to each “firm” is equivalent, as is the total amount of compensation each firm can provide.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Keunggulan kompetitifSchulze (1994) mengamati dua aliran pemikiran dalam strategi berbasis sumber dayaSastra-struktural dan proses sekolah – dan menegaskan beberapa asumsidibuat oleh kelompok-kelompok ini dalam menjelaskan keunggulan kompetitif. Secara umum, Schulze(1994) mengutip: 1) Conner (1991)-semua sumber daya berbasis perspectivists berasumsi bahwaperbedaan dalam atribut produk (dan karena itu kinerja) berkaitan dengan perbedaan dalam sumber daya yang dimiliki atau dikontrol oleh perusahaan; 2) Barney (1991)-sumber daya heterogen di seluruh perusahaan yang bersaing; dan 3) Rumelt (1987) – perusahaan yangmenyewa pencari. Mencari perusahaan seperti pengembalian lebih dari mencari profit "normal"perspektif, dan sewa ini dapat dibedakan oleh sumber mereka. Misalnya, perbedaan antara managerially diproduksi sewa versus yang dihasilkan oleh tenaga kerja.Schulze (1994) berpendapat dua asumsi tambahan yang membedakan masing-masing sekolahdari yang lain. Sekolah struktural dicirikan oleh asumsi yangcompetitive advantage is sustainable from resources that are rare, valuable, imperfectly mobile, and inimitable through substitution (Barney, 1991). The process school assumes that rents are available to the firm through managerial learning, development of new resources, and achieving a better match between the competitive environment and the capabilities of the firm resources (Schoemaker, 1990); aspects which directly implicate the managerial quality and discretion in the implementation of strategy.An implicit assumption of Conner (1991) is that competitive firms have differing inherent levels of efficacy with respect to their abilities to acquire critical resources.Firm-idiosyncratic resources are a central concept to the resource-based view andcreate a fundamental paradox with respect to generalizability of theory (Gibbert,2006). Finkelstein and Peteraf (2007) also note that some environments andorganizations limit managerial discretion. Some organizations or industries offervarying amounts of discretion depending upon their characteristics. A question arisesthen, if through chance or external policy, the ability of firms to acquire scarceresources was effectively equivalent, or non-idiosyncratic, would firm-by-firmmanagerial and developmental effects still account for all differences in rentproduction, or can the system of acquisition of resources account for these differences?Such an industry exists where, as a matter of policy, both the number of resourcesavailable to each “firm” is equivalent, as is the total amount of compensation each firm can provide.