1- Market Orientation
According to Kohli and Jaworski (1990) market orientation
refers to the compilation and distribution of information on
customer and competitive needs across a firm as well as the
suitable responses to those needs (as sited in Kumar et al.
2011). When a firm has a strong market orientation, this
entails a thorough understanding of its customer and consumer needs, a focus on customer satisfaction as well as a
strong understanding of its competitive environment,
preparing it for superior performance (Kumar et al. 2011).
Marketing capability has recently been identified as a
contributor to business success by a number of authors,
including Day (1994) and Hooley et al. (1999) (as cited in
Weerawardena 2003). Day (1994) advances that marketing
capability helps the business to compete strongly, enhancing
its products and services via a better systematic and integrated application of “collective knowledge” and skills that
address its consumer and customer needs (as cited in
Weerawardena 2003). This construct was added to the model
as it is believed to bridge some of the gap earlier described in
the dynamism of the Peteraf model, by allowing the firm to
evolve its strategies based on an on-going understanding of
its relevant environment. This is also touched upon by
Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) as they discuss the importance of ‘constant surveillance of markets and technologies
and the willingness to adopt best practice.’
2- Knowledge Management
The second construct that was added to the proposed model
by the researcher is knowledge management. Weerawardena
(2003) advances that according to Day (1994), Grant (1991,
1996), marketing capabilities arise when learning is generated over time as teams use their knowledge to address a
company’s marketing challenges. Knowledge management
is difficult to define because it has multiple interpretations
(Halawi and Aronson 2005). Knowledge management is the
deliberate action of making appropriate knowledge available
to the right audience in a timely way and also enabling this
audience to use this information effectively to benefit firm
performance (Halawi and Aronson 2005). Teece et al. (1997)
have also discussed the importance of knowledge management in this context as they highlight that clarity on how to
recognise, grow and sustain unique advantages that are hard
to imitate is crucial in the development of a dynamic capabilities conceptual framework. They also mention the
importance of ‘learning’ as a ‘process by which repetition
and experimentation enable tasks to be performed better and
quicker as organisational knowledge is generated’.
12 Implications and Future Research
This research examines the extant literature on the sources of
sustainable competitive advantage, reflecting the divergent
opinions on the matter. It advances the existing knowledge
in this field by comparing and contrasting different views,
and proposing a conceptual framework which can be used by
practitioners as a multi-faceted tool to examine and build
competitive advantage in a systematic way. It would be very
useful to empirically test the proposed conceptual famework.
The purpose of empirical validation would be to practically
test the constructs of the framework amongst practitioners,
understand if there are any further constructs that merit
inclusion in the framework and generally validate the usefulness of the framework as a tool to systematically understand sustainable competitive advantage as well as help build
it. This will be covered in a future research.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to convey sincere appreciation
to Dr Khaled Wahba for his continuous guidance and supervision of the
doctoral work that inspired this article.
References
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities
and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29–49.
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource. British
Journal of Management, 20(S1), 9–24.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organisational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and
business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Breznik, L., & Lahovnik, M. (2014). Renewing the resource base in
line with the dynamic capabilities view: A key to sustainable
competitive advantage in the IT industry. JEEMS, 19(4), 453–485.
Chaharbaghi, K., & Lynch, R. (1999). Sustainable competitive
advantage: Towards a dynamic resource-based strategy. Management Decision, 37(1), 45–50.
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources.
Harvard Business Review, 119.
Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory
and five schools of thought within industrial organisation economics: do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of
Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organisations. The
Journal of Marketing, 37–52.
De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy
paradoxes to create competitive advantage. London, UK: Thomson
Learning.
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are
they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Towards an Understanding of the Sources of Sustainable …
315
According to Kohli and Jaworski (1990) market orientation
refers to the compilation and distribution of information on
customer and competitive needs across a firm as well as the
suitable responses to those needs (as sited in Kumar et al.
2011). When a firm has a strong market orientation, this
entails a thorough understanding of its customer and consumer needs, a focus on customer satisfaction as well as a
strong understanding of its competitive environment,
preparing it for superior performance (Kumar et al. 2011).
Marketing capability has recently been identified as a
contributor to business success by a number of authors,
including Day (1994) and Hooley et al. (1999) (as cited in
Weerawardena 2003). Day (1994) advances that marketing
capability helps the business to compete strongly, enhancing
its products and services via a better systematic and integrated application of “collective knowledge” and skills that
address its consumer and customer needs (as cited in
Weerawardena 2003). This construct was added to the model
as it is believed to bridge some of the gap earlier described in
the dynamism of the Peteraf model, by allowing the firm to
evolve its strategies based on an on-going understanding of
its relevant environment. This is also touched upon by
Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) as they discuss the importance of ‘constant surveillance of markets and technologies
and the willingness to adopt best practice.’
2- Knowledge Management
The second construct that was added to the proposed model
by the researcher is knowledge management. Weerawardena
(2003) advances that according to Day (1994), Grant (1991,
1996), marketing capabilities arise when learning is generated over time as teams use their knowledge to address a
company’s marketing challenges. Knowledge management
is difficult to define because it has multiple interpretations
(Halawi and Aronson 2005). Knowledge management is the
deliberate action of making appropriate knowledge available
to the right audience in a timely way and also enabling this
audience to use this information effectively to benefit firm
performance (Halawi and Aronson 2005). Teece et al. (1997)
have also discussed the importance of knowledge management in this context as they highlight that clarity on how to
recognise, grow and sustain unique advantages that are hard
to imitate is crucial in the development of a dynamic capabilities conceptual framework. They also mention the
importance of ‘learning’ as a ‘process by which repetition
and experimentation enable tasks to be performed better and
quicker as organisational knowledge is generated’.
12 Implications and Future Research
This research examines the extant literature on the sources of
sustainable competitive advantage, reflecting the divergent
opinions on the matter. It advances the existing knowledge
in this field by comparing and contrasting different views,
and proposing a conceptual framework which can be used by
practitioners as a multi-faceted tool to examine and build
competitive advantage in a systematic way. It would be very
useful to empirically test the proposed conceptual famework.
The purpose of empirical validation would be to practically
test the constructs of the framework amongst practitioners,
understand if there are any further constructs that merit
inclusion in the framework and generally validate the usefulness of the framework as a tool to systematically understand sustainable competitive advantage as well as help build
it. This will be covered in a future research.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to convey sincere appreciation
to Dr Khaled Wahba for his continuous guidance and supervision of the
doctoral work that inspired this article.
References
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities
and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29–49.
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Collier, N. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of how firms renew their resource. British
Journal of Management, 20(S1), 9–24.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organisational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and
business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Breznik, L., & Lahovnik, M. (2014). Renewing the resource base in
line with the dynamic capabilities view: A key to sustainable
competitive advantage in the IT industry. JEEMS, 19(4), 453–485.
Chaharbaghi, K., & Lynch, R. (1999). Sustainable competitive
advantage: Towards a dynamic resource-based strategy. Management Decision, 37(1), 45–50.
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources.
Harvard Business Review, 119.
Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory
and five schools of thought within industrial organisation economics: do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of
Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organisations. The
Journal of Marketing, 37–52.
De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy
paradoxes to create competitive advantage. London, UK: Thomson
Learning.
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are
they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Towards an Understanding of the Sources of Sustainable …
315