Is there any useful research tool available to me?

2. Is there any useful research tool available to me?

 

Look for the Parent Organisation in FAME (often shown as “INC.” for US  Companies, and this should give you a clickable link into OSIRIS (the sister  database).

∙ You can investigate the financials of the Corporate (top) Level of your target  company. Either stay at that level for all of your analysis, or step down to a  particular Division (or SBU).

∙ Benchmarking data can be seen by configuring the view for “Peer Report”. For  very large group companies the Peer Report returns of FAME/OSIRIS may be  much more useful at the Divisional (SBU) level (so look at both).

∙ The AVC + VRIN (for Section 4) can be done at Corp or Divisional (SBU)level. ∙ Leadership information will inevitably be at the Corporate Level (so you need to  show linkage if you chose to analyse mainly at the SBU level, i.e. explain how  Corporate Leadership impinges on the chosen Division).

∙ In Section 6 you will have to choose a strategic topic for deeper analysis (6A  Business Competitive Strategy is at the SBU level, the other four choices, 6B, 6C,  6D, 6E are probably more appropriate at Corporate Level).

∙ Make your recommendations in Section 7 (e.g. by using SAFe criteria for your  evaluation). Don’t forget to comment about Sustainability. Underpin your  recommendations with reference to your analysis and evidence in previous  sections (by page number).

∙ If you have focused upon an SBU (Division), make sure that your

recommendations will be acceptable to other divisions of thecorporation.

Remember, that although this is a powerful research tool, it is focused on financial  metrics. In this module we are exploring how too narrow a viewpoint of business  success can be a strategic mistake! What other measures should be considered to get a  balanced view, and how are academics arguing about this?

3. If the organisation is a huge multinational can I analyse just one SBU / Division? Yes.

The best approach is to concentrate on one Division (or Strategic Business Unit) this  could be trading internationally in one set of goods or services. Please remember that  this assignment must have multiple connections between sections. This means that you  must link the Leadership to your analysis. This inevitably means analysis of the top  echelon of the organisation (i.e. Corporate Level). So your recommendations for the  company can be devoted to one division (SBU), but there must be linkage to the  Leadership in your analysis. If you’re adopting this approach, your AVC only needs to  be detailed at the Strategic Business Unit (SBU) or Divisional level, but should also  make reference to the rest of the company (without any detail). This makes the AVC  simpler (with off-page arrows suggesting ‘more over there’, but unspecified and not  shown). Remember it is the locations of Core Capability that really need to be shown on  the AVC the rest is just providing relational background.

You must also make sure that your recommendation is not “sub-optimal“, i.e., it would  make enormous sense for the SBU, but it would be disruptive or unacceptable to the rest  of the company. Remember that you have additional stakeholders to consider if you  recommend at the SBU level … the Senior Management of each of the other SBUs!

4. If the organisation is a huge multinational can I analyse its operation in justone country?

No.

This is very unwise for a large multi-national business or global corporation.

We have most of the concerns mentioned in Q.5 above (like Leadership-Strategy linkage  and sub-optimal solutions), but also it could bring in additional factors if the country in  question is relatively unique. For instance, we suggest that you use the textbook’s  framework of Suitability, Acceptance and Feasibility for evaluating your strategic  recommendations. This could get very complex if you are trying to analyse at the  National Level (where resistance could also be applied from other parts of the  international organisation or there are local specific issues like BREXIT which will not be  a major concern for a huge organisation with a global reach).

There will probably be more scope for your strategic analysis if you focus on the  International Level for the entire organisation or a specific Division (or SBU) of a  Corporation operating in the majority of countries.

Far better to base your analysis on say the international operations of just the Robotics  Division of Corporation X (rather than how the Corporation X does business in Country  Y.)

5. Analysing a New Division (SBU)

It is perfectly feasible to address what is effectively a “start-up division” of a corporate.  You just have to be a bit more comfortable with a higher level of ambiguity and  speculation.

You must keep the reader informed of when you are stepping up to the corporate level to  make a point. The focus of your analysis is on the new emerging division, but you will  need to hop between corporate and divisional level a bit more than usual.

This exercise is easier than trying to conduct this type of analysis on a brand-new start up. The corporation will probably have certain competences, resources and capabilities  that can be deployed into a new division. The marketplace might be new, but the  corporation with a significant dynamic capability might be able to make a ‘power move’  from an almost standing start.

The following is a breakdown of some of the tactics you need to employ for each section  of the assignment …

Section Two – Measures

It is OK to just state that there are no past official figures available for the division.  You could state the corporate financials as an overview. Don’t attempt finish this  section until you have got to section 7 Recommendations. You may well be able to  suggest one or more key measures for a division about to compete in a sector new to  the corporation. There may be some clues with the existing players regarding this,  but don’t make this all about them. Rather than concentrating on competitors, focus  on speculative but informed articles about this emerging situation in the corporation.  This way you can demonstrate your ability to purposefully measure an emerging  situation for a corporation. You might find that developing a Strategy Canvas for  players in this marketplace might help to consolidate some strong recommendations  about how the new division might compete effectively …

Section Three – Reasons for Success

In this section you need to keep the reader aware of where you are analysing. Some  of this will be devoted to the corporation, and some of this can come from expert  opinion considering the likely success factors for this new division. Here you are  looking to collect reasons for success at the corporation (as a whole) that can be  marshalled and channelled towards their new division.

A similar situation that occurred in the past happened at Sony. In the 1990s they  were suddenly able to enter and compete most effectively in the games console  market. This is now a celebrated example of Dynamic Capability. Sony had all the  constituent parts for a successful and potent market entry.

Consider whether all the necessary precursors exist in your corporation(?). Again,  don’t try to finish this section until you have reached section 7 recommendations. At

the very least you will probably want to reorder the subsections (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc) to  support your analysis in section 4 and your recommendations in section 7.

Section Four – AVC-VRIN

Here you’re going to have to imagine the Adapted Value Chain (AVC) for this division  going forward. Some of the clues will come from the existing competitors in this  marketplace like Netflix. However, do look carefully at articles suggesting how this is  going to be constructed, because it might not be a carbon copy of the major  competitors. Has your corporation got their own “Distinct way of doing things”? or  are they accomplished innovators? You’ll probably be able to find opinions about this  in the third party press.

The VRIN candidate factors should emerge from your research about the corporation  and the speculative press articles about this new division. Is there something that the  corporation is particularly noted to be good doing that can be applied here?

Don’t forget to synthesise the AVC with the VRIN (probably by means of an additional  rightmost column in the VRIN Table “AVC location” which carries the requisites AVC  codes).

Section Five – Leadership

Make the reader aware that you are conducting this analysis at the top corporate  level. You are analysing the current leader (and if he or she is a recent recruit, then  you might be looking at the legacy of the former leader). How does this leadership  style impinge upon this fledgling division? Has the leader had to stand down from  any other positions to prevent a conflict of interest? Is this the “pet project” of this  particular leader? Will the leader’s ‘success’ be inextricably linked to the fortunes of  this new division?

Section Six – Focus Issue Choice

Your choice here, but most of these will have to be somewhat speculative.

Business Level Strategy (6A) you will need to speculate on what basis your  corporation will be competing with existing players in the marketplace. Would a  Strategy Canvas help with the word count?

International Strategy (6B) … whether you choose this or not will probably depend  upon here is going to be a gradual internationalisation for this division.

Innovation Strategy (6C) how might corporate innovation methods be carried into  the new division. Could it impinge upon the market entry process? Could the  corporation enter the market with a Blue Ocean strategy (if, so why not use a Strategy Canvas?). Don’t forget we are talking about product, process and business model innovation (why not refer back to your AVC which should reflect this).

Collaboration Strategy (6D) will have to be at the corporate level (how might M&As  or Joint Ventures affect the new division?).

Sustainability Strategy (6E) can the division contribute to or lead the way on  sustainability for the corporation?

Section Seven – Strategic Recommendations

Having built the metaphorical pyramid you are now in a position to deploy your  argument making frequent referrals back by page number. Don’t forget that it may be  necessary to make some adjustments in the previous sections to strengthen your  argument. If nothing else make sure that you are mentioning the key facts first in  each section. Yes, this analysis has been somewhat speculative, but it is based upon  available facts and the opinions coming from relatively authoritative sources. Where  you have had to use a questionable source you have made the reader aware of your  misgivings (perhaps even suggested that the reader should be alert for future news  on that particular subject; e.g. speculation surrounding a possible merger, acquisition  or planned legislation).

Now you can write your Introduction in less than 100 words. Name the corporation,  specify the division and tell the reader why it is worth their time reading this valuable  document!

6. Can I use Appendices?

No.

Any material you put into an appendix will not be marked. Notably, if you put your VRIN  or AVC into an appendix you will probably fail this module!

7. Will we be submitting to TurnItIn?

Yes.

There is no printed assignment hand in for this module. Please make sure that you will  be able to submit on-line in May 2020.

 

9. Can I use insider information?

No.

Even if you have worked for the chosen company in the past (or you have a friend or  relative in that situation), you cannot cite (or make any use of) material that is not in the

public domain. We expect you to analyse as an outsider.

10. Is Section Three concerned with MY reasons for the company’s success? No.

Section Three is your collection of reasons given by third party experts and  commentators. It is as though you are a curator of a museum laying out exhibits for  display. Separate the reasons found into numbered sub-headings that make it easy for  the reader to assimilate …

Here is a “fake” example …

3. SIX TO TEN REASONS FOR THE COMPANY’S BUSINESS SUCCESS 3.1 Extensive Intellectual Property Rights

˂your text explaining with sources cited …˃

3.2 On-line Platform Ownership

˂your text explaining with sources cited …˃

3.3 Strategic Alliance with Key Competitor

˂your text explaining with sources cited …˃ 

etc., etc., to 3.6 and beyond(?)

You do not have to write very much under each sub-heading, just enough to clarify what  is suggested and the citation of where you collected this source. This will be just a few  lines. When you have reached Section 7 and formulated recommendation(s) you can refer back (by page number or sub-section) to any of these reasons that support your  argument.

Perhaps you should then re-order the sub-headings with those that you are using for  support stated first … why? Well, you are trying to convince the reader, so why not put  those reasons (that are important to your argument) first!

11. In the Assessment Brief you mention the use of double quotes? This happened to be a peculiarity of the TurnItIn software (when we last checked):

If you use ….

“Core rigidities are the flip side of core capabilities. They are not neutral; these  deeply embedded knowledge sets actively create problems”, (Leonard-Barton, 1992,  p.118).

… then TurnItIn ignores it for PlagiarismWhereas …

‘Core rigidities are the flip side of core capabilities. They are not neutral; these  deeply embedded knowledge sets actively create problems’, (Leonard-Barton, 1992,  p.118).

… gets cited against anyone else who has used it (including Dorothy Leonard-Barton  herself …).

Some writers reserve the double quotes for the spoken word, but unfortunately this

distinction is lost on TurnItIn*.

*This semester we have the new TurnItIn LTI 1.3 which may have fixed this bug.

12. I am running out of word count … what can I do?

This is a common problem (but the word count is an intrinsic part of the assessment).  Here are some suggestions of where you might be able to recover some words in

∙ Have a look at your Section 4. Have you wasted too many words on a textual  description of your Adapted Value Chain (AVC)? If the logic of the diagram is  obvious, there is no need to repeat it in words.

∙ Have you described theory to the reader? You can assume that your marker  knows the origins of the theory. We just want to read how you have used it (and  cited its usage). We do not need long explanations of say, “core competence”;  just cite the key authors (e.g. Prahalad & Hamel, 1989).

∙ You do not need to display a blank Porter’s Generic Value Chain if you have  created an Adapted Value Chain (AVC); we are not interested in its history or  lineage.

∙ Refer back by page number to earlier analysis. Do not repeat it in full in your  recommendations, e.g.:

“As was identified in these activity sets in the AVC (p.5) and analysed in VRIN  (p.7) this SCA can underpin this strategic recommendation.”

or …

“As mentioned previously, key authors have identified this as a reason for  success (p.3); however the AVC-VRIN analysis (pp.8-10) also supports …”

We often encounter excellent work that “runs out of steam” in Section 7 because you  have not left enough words for the suggestions in your recommendation. Make sure that  you are apportioning the word count wisely.

13. You have frequently mentioned that we should keep our own opinions out of sections 2-6 and then express them as a strategic recommendation in section 7; shouldn’t we justify throughout?

No.

What we are wanting you to avoid is an unsupported strategic recommendation. You can  only make a fully-supported strategic recommendation after presenting all of your  evidence and analysis in sections 2 to 6. In section 7, you support your recommendation  by referring back to evidence or analysis previously made (by page number). In this way  you are satisfying both requirements.

In Section 2 – 6, it is therefore important that you are not too dogmatic in any personal  statement concerning evidence or analysis. For instance, in section three you  mentioned that one authoritative source is making a strategic suggestion concerning the  company and you write that this is a big mistake (in your opinion). It is likely that you will  receive feedback from the marker “How do you know this?”, “How can you support such  an argument?”, or “You should put your suggestions into Section 7”.

14. Title and Visual Style for the Assignment?

We are not giving any additional marks for visual presentation, so please don’t devote too  much time to this. A logo on the front page is more than enough. You can give a title  phrase to the report such as “Future Business Success at Company X” or similar. Make  it consistent with the Introduction (100 words).

15. How to apply References

∙ Please put all references together at the end of the assignment.

∙ We expect to see plenty of both academic references (for theory and strategytools)  and authoritative expert sources for the chosen company.

∙ We do not expect to see a large volume of citations pointing to the company’s own  website.

∙ Do not cite the Module Textbook repeatedly (use the textbook to find theoriginal  source and document and cite that instead).

∙ Some original material like SAFe, and adapted material like the ‘Mendelow’ Matrix  (Power vs. Interest Level) are attributable to the textbook.

∙ Please make sure that you refer to the correct edition when citing a page number …  16. What are some of the common mistakes made on this module? Please don’t do any of the following:

∙ Submit FINAL too early

Try to have used most of your word limit at least a week before submitting and then  carefully review and modify your assignment to add value. Add more

citation/references, can you make more linkages between sections? You can only  submit FINAL once.

∙ Trying to complete the Assignment before all lectures are delivered It is vital that you get to Lecture No.24 before considering completing the assignment.  We cover ways that you can gain greater marks in Section 7. Failing to comprehend  strategy evaluation techniques is often the reason for not reaching a First in this  subject.

∙ Unsupported recommendations in Section 7

Don’t provide “surprise” unsupported suggestions in Section 7. Read back from  your recommendation and make sure that you are fully supporting your suggestions  in earlier sections. Refer back (by page number) to the evidence that supports your  case (from Section 7).

∙ Writing about and explaining strategic theory

Please assume that your reader (the marker) is fully conversant with the taught  theory. We want you to concentrate mostly on applying the theory appropriately.  Explaining the theory in detail is a waste of your word limit.

∙ Wasting words in AVC description

Check that you are not describing obvious features of your AVC, or repeating what is  stated in the diagram.

∙ Exclusively using theory that was not taught on this module in any section  This is very risky and may be rejected by the marker. For instance, it would be  foolish to try and submit an assignment based purely upon learning gained  elsewhere. Crucially, it could not work with the rubric marking scheme! We strongly  recommend that you always start with the theories taught on this module, and then,  perhaps, make a brief additional references to further work to demonstrate wider  reading (but only if you have sufficient word count remaining).

∙ Using Pure Exogenous Strategy Tools

We specifically ask you not to insert any PESTEL, Five Forces or SWOT analytical  tools. Considered  outputs from your preparation may have an exogenous origin but we will not give any  additional marks for exogenous tool inclusion in the submission (you are wasting your  word limit if you include them and then have to use explanatory words).

∙ Porter’s Generic Value Chain (1985)

You have had extensive lectures and seminars on how to develop an Adapted Value  Chain (AVC). We are assigning significant marks to this form of analysis. As was explained in the module, the original form of Value Chain (and its activity titles like  “Outbound Logistics”) are not very useful for contemporary companies. Develop your  own AVC (if you aspire towards the better marks available in this key section).

∙ Using Ticks or Crosses in the VRIN.

Please convert these to “Y” (Yes) or “N” (No); otherwise we cannot mark your VRIN in  TurnItIn.

∙ Using Question Marks in the VRIN.

Use these if necessary in your preparation, but remove them ALL and replace with a  decision (“Y” or “N”) before submitting. Where this is difficult and a ‘very tight  decision’, please make a comment in your text to that effect.

∙ Not using an SCA Conclusions Column in the VRIN.

This is required … do not leave it out.

∙ No apparent linkage between AVC and VRIN.

As explained in the lectures, the VRIN identifies the best of “WHAT” and the AVC  provides the “WHERE” and in terms of Strategic Capability. You need to link these  two concepts in an iterative approach to developing your strategic argument.

∙ Not submitting Draft Versions to TurnItIn (as you progress)

We don’t mark draft and incomplete versions submitted to the Draft Folders, but we  do look at them! If a common mistake is being made by some students, we will alert  ALL students (and probably add something to these FAQs).

The Draft TurnItin Similarity Report can be your “research friend” … it spots  something similar (that is not student work, but published somewhere) … you have  not read that before … you check it out … now you have something that you can  legitimately cite in your text … thanks to TurnItIn!

17. Where to start with an Adapted Value Chain?

You could try our PowerPoint kit provided on the eLP.

Do not feel constrained to use the old Porter terminology (“in-bound logistics” or “firm  infrastructure”). Remember you are trying to represent Activity Sets in a diagram using  meaningful names.

Try to create the first of many iterations (you cannot get it right first time …). As you take  singular activity sets (or combinations of activity sets) to test in VRIN, you may return to  the AVC with ‘second thoughts’ about the AVC arrangement …

If the organisation/company is enormous we do not expect you to create an AVC to  match! You need to show WHERE the internal source of competitive advantage might be  located within internal activities, so we don’t need to see elsewhere portrayed in detail.

If you name an activity set with a name that is exclusively used inside the company, then  you might have to explain it briefly in your text (as jargon). For instance, if Spotify was  one of the assignment companies (which it is not) you might create a Support Activity  called “Hack Weeks”. In this case, you need to explain what a “Hack Week” is inside the  Spotify organisation.

As you are not conducting research inside the company, you do not need to submit an  Activity Systems Diagram (like the “Geelmuyden, Kiese” Fig 4.8 in the textbook) as a  precursor to your AVC.

18. What goes where in an Adapted Value Chain?

In general terms the arrangement should be …

• Time-ordered Primary Activities deliver the promised Product/Service to the End User by means of the Primary Chain.
• Support activities make sure that the Primary Activities can function (as envisaged)in the Primary Chain.

One test for Primary or Support (that is favoured by Accountants) is whether the cost of  the activity is variable with volume.

e.g. Spray Painting cost is proportional to number of units produced in terms of paint  used and sprayer job time (hence Primary Activity); whereas the Design Function is a  fixed cost where designers are paid salary (hence Support Activity).

Another test is that Support Activities can usually support several Primary Activities in the  Primary Chain (hence they are longitudinal on the diagram).

Test:

Should “Research & Development” (R&D) be in the Primary Chain?

Ask yourself whether the company carries out Research and Development on the product  every time a unit is produced on the production line (?)

This would be very inefficient and colossally expensive, so the answer is NO. R&D is a Support Activity for Primary Activities like Production, Sales, Service, etc.

19. What if the company has published a Value Chain on their own website?

Company-based Value Chain Data can be very misleading (because they do not always  have an academic pedigree and tend to be marketing artefacts).

There can be some very vague notions of value chain out there (just try googling “value  chain” images, to see what I mean).

We suggest that you can reference their configuration, even critique key elements of it;  but ultimately build your own version out of your analysis of in-house and external  information about the company. Don’t forget you may need to adapt your initial AVC (as  you interface with VRIN) and to eventually underpin your strategic recommendation. Your AVC will be reinforcing your recommendation, so it may be somewhat different to a  Value Chain posted by a Marketing Department.

20. Synthesis of AVC with VRIN?

This is achieved by repeated interaction between the two techniques (iterative steps in  development of both). Remember, that ultimately the final presentation of AVC and  VRIN (we just want the end result to be shown) is essentially informing the reader that…

There is a suspected Capability (with SCA significance shown in VRIN) located roughly in  Activity Set or Sets (shown across the AVC).

This linkage can be shown by lines on a diagram OR by adding an extra column to the  VRIN table “AVC Location Code” where you have coded the AVC.

21. How do you make judgements in VRIN?

As you should be citing “Adapted from Barney (1991)” in your VRIN Caption; you should  also read his paper!

How to determine whether to pass or fail V, R, I or N is explained by Barney from page  107 onwards.

Your text book also covers this for V, R and I (but remember the textbook uses VRIO,  which we think is harder to use in an assignment).

Please note that Barney in his early papers on VRIN uses “Imperfect Imitability” for “I” (which has now become INIMITABILITY, but has the same intended meaning).

22. Is there any difference in applying VRIN to a company that makes products compared to one that provides services?

Not really.

Remember that you are testing candidate Capabilities (that may contain Competences  and/or Resources) for SCA (or lower categories of commercial advantage). A  manufacturing company might be more peculiarly reliant on Resources than one that  provides Services.

Hint: You may find this becomes clearer once you have received the lecture on  Innovation Strategy. This is because it encompasses Product, Process and  Business Model Innovation.

23. How to score well in Section 4?

As you now appreciate, Section 4 is worth 30% of the total marks. It is therefore very  important to make sure that you score well in this section.

This section can only be sensibly completed when you have developed your  recommendations in Section 7. So be prepared to move on once you have the main

elements in place, with the firm intention of returning to it later for essential “fine tuning”. So what does an “Excellent” Section 4 look like?

Essentially there should be three main elements:

1. a) An Adapted Value Chain that roughly represents the Business Model of the Detail is present only where you need to identify the likely location of Strategic Capability, Competence or Resource combinations within Activity Sets (that  support your strategic recommendations in Section 7).
2. b) A VRIN Test that highlights the high scoring Strategic Capabilities,Competences and Resources (that support your strategic recommendations in Section 7). c) A discussion of each Strategic Capability, Competence or Resource that underpins your recommendations in Section 7 (one or two paragraphs for each adopted  candidate). To save words, you can show linkage lines on the AVC where  combinations of activity are implicated, OR have an extra VRIN column “AVC  Location Codes”.

You might discard some failed VRIN candidates when you fine tune this section  before submitting.

If you have included (a), (b) and (c) in your Section 4, then the reader should be able  to tell WHAT is probably significant inside the company and WHERE it is likely to be  located within activity sets (according to your strategic thinking and cited evidence).

Note 1: We are NOT giving any marks for a picture of Porter’s (1985) Generic Value  Chain, so don’t include one. We want to see your Adapted Value Chain  (AVC)!

Note 2: Don’t waste words explaining AVC or VRIN theory (assume the reader already  knows this).

Note 3: Don’t waste words explaining non-crucial (to your recommendations) elements  of the AVC, or anything that is obvious in your diagram.

Note 4: It might be worth retaining a complete failure (N-N-N-N) in your VRIN. Why?

As it is classified as “CD” (Competitive Disadvantage), you could additionally  recommend (in Section 7) that the company simply stops doing it!

24. How to score well in Section 7?

A Strategic Recommendation should encompass several suggestions to the firm. The  quality of your answer in this section is measured in terms of the rationale that you  present. This needs to be explained with multiple referrals (supporting the suggestions)  back to elements of your previous sections (by page number). You build your case  (much like a legal expert would for a trial).

The yellow threads in the Assignment Structure Diagram (the “Aztec Temple” shown  below) represented this “joined up” logic in your lectures and seminars (but please do not  use this diagram in your assignment).

Irrespective of your choice in section 6, we want you to include some observations about  future Sustainability as regards to your strategic recommendation to the company.

We are looking for well-considered and properly underpinned strategic  recommendation(s) that contain suggestions based upon quality rationales.

See previous Questions here concerning underpinning of recommendations.  Note: A Strategic Recommendation can contain one or more “suggestions”.

25. Possible confusion when reading Barney’s 1991 Paper?

An excellent question from a student in 2017 prompted this answer:

Barney uses the term “Firm Resources” in a particular way which may confuse you …

“In this article, firm resources include all assets, capabilities, organizational processes,  firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. to include financial, human and physical  assets.”

… his paper predates the resolution that we obtained in 1997 with “Strategic Capability  contains Competence and /or Resources”. So Barney is still “in the mix” with authors  such as Prahalad & Hamel (who were promoting Core Competence) and others  supporting rival concepts when he wrote this.

Barney’s (1991) argument is that, if Firm Resources are “Homogeneous” (uniformly  similar to those possessed by others) and “Mobile” (easily transferred to others) they are  effectively available to all competitors, so no sustained advantage can be derived by any  player in the marketplace. So he initially postulates a market where all firms have the  same Firm Resources where no one can adopt a unique strategy over the others.

Barney (1991) then contends that it is when Firm Resources become “Heterogeneous”  (unusually diverse in composition) and “Immobile” (not easily transferred to others) that  they can become a source of sustained competitive advantage.

He reaches the key claim of his paper (at page 105, with the following …):

“Of course, not all firm resources hold the potential of sustained competitive advantages.  To have this potential, a firm resource must have four attributes: (a) it must be valuable,  in the sense that it exploit opportunities and/or neutralizes threats in a firm’s environment,

(b) it must be rare among a firm’s current and potential competition, (c) it must be  imperfectly imitable, and (d) there cannot be strategically equivalent substitutes for this  resource that are valuable but neither rare or imperfectly imitable.”

…and hence the VRIN Test is born!

Note: that Barney uses the term “Imperfect Imitability” which we now understand as  “Inimitability”.

26. IS THIS ASSIGNMENT AN ESSAY OR A REPORT?

While it is both …

1. For assignment purposes it is considered an academic essay (with APA citation/referencing of Theory and Authoritative Sources).
2. Additionally, from a “transferable employment skills” viewpoint is has the elements of a carefully documented strategic consultancy report that could brief a Top Management Team.

… you will appreciate that “A” will be the  predominating criteria during the assessment (i.e. you must keep it academic).

However, we suggest that you use numbered sub-headings (in report fashion) to improve  readability and clarity of argument:

e.g. using a ‘fake’ example structure to demonstrate …

3. SIX TO TEN REASONS FOR THE COMPANY’S BUSINESS SUCCESS 3.1 Extensive Intellectual Property Rights

˂your text explaining with sources cited …˃

3.2 On-line Platform Ownership

˂your text explaining with sources cited …˃

3.3 Strategic Alliance with Key Competitor

˂your text explaining with sources cited …˃ etc, etc.

…the reasons are the sub-headings (hence the busy CEO can assimilate your reasoning  rapidly).