Scanning Dynamic Competitive Landscapes: A Market-based and Resource-based Framework

By Margaret A. Peteraf, Mark Bergen. 2003

667 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab1afeecfb0206a2cf9636c6a8ad0e7bd156e49e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The development of the resource-based view of the firm: A critical appraisal (2009, neutral): “It is not the resource type per se that matters, it is the functionality of the resource and how the resource is employed (Penrose 1959; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Wernerfelt 1984).”
Competitive Tension: The Awareness-Motivation-Capability Perspective (2007, background): “Scholars taking a strategic-group approach consider firms within the same “primary competitive group” (Porac et al., 1989: 414) to be homogeneous, or they classify them broadly as direct (Peteraf & Bergen, 2003) or core competitors (Porac, et al., 1995).”
A Modern Resource Based Approach to Unrelated Diversification (2007, neutral): “This would lead to a ‘retrenchment’ or a gradual refocusing of an organization’s resources and capabilities (Peteraf and Bergen, 2003).”
Performance Implications of Firm Resource Interactions in the Acquisition of R&D-Intensive Firms (2008, background): “…can be used to gain access to technology (Uhlenbruck et al. 2006), (5) helping to resolve the debate on whether acquired research and development (R&D) acts as a complement (Veugelers 1997) or substitute (Hitt et al. 1990), and (6) exploring resource substitutability (Peteraf and Bergen 2003).”
Effects of Firm R&D Investment and Environment on Acquisition Likelihood* (2006, positive): “Moreover, to the extent that acquisitions substitute for acquiring firms’ R&D investments (Blonigen and Taylor, 2000; Peteraf and Bergen, 2003), observations of decreased R&D spending following an acquisition support the premise of the current research that target firm R&D resources are recognized…”
The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles (2003, background): “Additionally, in some environments, firms may be able to compensate for lower skillfulness in one capability (e.g., manufacturing) with greater skillfulness in another capability (e.g., marketing) (see Peteraf and Bergen, 2003).”
A resource-based approach to performance and competition : An overview of the connections between resources and competition (2004, background): “…an efficiency-based explanation of performance differences; it is concerned with Ricardian rents resulting from the scarcity of superior resources (Peteraf and Bergen, 2003) and quasi-rents, i.e. the difference between the value of an asset in its first best use and its value in its next best use.”
The impact of government financial support on the performance of new firms: the role of competitive advantage as an intermediate outcome (2014, background): “…since RBV researchers have argued that the ‘rareness’ of a resource that firms possess is not enough to ensure competitive advantage and enhanced performance, and therefore firms should focus instead on the rareness of resource bundles or substitute resources (e.g. Peteraf and Bergen 2003).”
Managerial capabilities and paths to growth as determinants of high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises (2011, background): “Peteraf and Bergen (2003) indicate that resource-based theory is best capable of adding insights when focused on product–markets and the resources needed to develop an activity in a product market. Vorhies et al. (2009) find support for capabilities as appropriate mechanisms for implementing product”