Market pioneers, late movers, and the resource based view (rbv)- a conceptual model
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Market pioneers, late movers, and the resource based view (rbv)- a conceptual model






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Market pioneers, late movers, and the resource based view (rbv)- a conceptual model Market pioneers, late movers, and the resource based view (rbv)- a conceptual model Document Transcript

  • Available online at Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925 – 932 Market pioneers, late movers, and the resource-based view (RBV): A conceptual model R. Zachary Finney a,⁎, Jason E. Lueg b,1 , Noel D. Campbell c,2 a University of South Alabama, Mitchell College of Business, Department of Marketing and E-Commerce, MCOB 356, Mobile AL 36688 0002, United States b Mississippi State University, College of Business and Industry, Department of Marketing, Quantitative Analysis, and Business Law, P.O. Box 9582, Mississippi State MS 39762, United States c University of Central Arkansas, Department of Economics, Finance, and Risk Management, 201 Donaghey Avenue, Conway AR 72035, United States Received 9 January 2007; accepted 25 September 2007Abstract Lieberman and Montgomery note that “…we see benefits from linking empirical findings on first-mover advantages with the complementarystream of research on the resource-based view of the firm” (1998, p. 1111); they suggest that such a link will help explain differences in firmperformance. Therefore, this study develops a conceptual framework linking FMAs with the resource-based view of the firm (RBV); in doing so,this framework explains the links between entry timing, resource management, and firm performance. Specifically, this study examines FMAs inlight of a four-step resource management process [Morgan RM. Relationship marketing and marketing strategy: the evolution of relationshipstrategy within the organization. In: Sheth JN, Parvatiyar A, editors. Handbook of Relationship Marketing. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGEPublications, 2000. p. 481–504.; Morgan RM, Hunt S. Relationship-based competitive advantage: the role of relationship marketing in marketingstrategy. J Bus Res 1999; 46 (November): 281–90.] consisting of: 1) efficient acquisition (EA), 2) bundling/combining (BC), 3) positioning(POS), and 4) maintenance/protection (MP). The link between FMAs and the resource management process helps explain why so few first moversretain their advantages.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords: Resources; Capabilities; Resource-based view; First-mover advantage; First mover; Market pioneer; Late mover1. First-mover advantages (FMAs), late-mover advantages learning curve effects and advantages based on R&D), 2)(LMAs), and the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm: preemption of assets, and 3) switching costs (Lieberman andAn overview Montgomery, 1988). Market pioneers enjoy FMAs. However, market pioneering carries potential disadvantages FMA (first-mover advantage) is the ability of a firm to earn as well (Lieberman and Montgomery, 1988):above average profits by a) entering a market first and b) enteringthe market in a way that thwarts other firms attempts to compete • Late movers may “free ride” on some of the costs shoulderedin that market (Lieberman and Montgomery, 1988). At least by the pioneerthree bases produce FMAs: 1) technology (product introduction • Large technological or market uncertainties may exist when entering a market first • Technology or customer needs may shift after the pioneer ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +251 460 6033; fax: +251 460 7909. enters the market E-mail addresses: (R.Z. Finney), (J.E. Lueg), (N.D. Campbell). • First movers may suffer from “incumbent inertia.” That is, 1 Tel.: +662 325 7011; fax: +662 325 7012. first movers may fail to change their business practices as the 2 Tel.: +501 852 7743; fax: +501 450 5302. product market changes0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.023
  • 926 R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–9321.1. Resource-based view (RBV) of the firm 1.3. Resource management The RBV explains how firm resources drive differences in firm While many conceptualizations of the resource managementperformance. Critics of the RBV assert that broad conceptualiza- process exist, this paper uses Morgans (2000) conceptualizationtions of firm resources ignore important differences in firm assets because Finney et al. (2005) established empirical support forand firm abilities (Priem and Butler, 2001). Therefore, scholars Morgans work. Morgan (2000) conceives of resource manage-ditinguish between firm resources and firm capabilities (c.f., Amit ment as a four-step process: 1) efficient acquisition (EA), 2)and Schoemaker, 1993; Dutta et al., 2005; Greenley et al., 2005; bundling/combining (BC), 3) positioning (POS), and 4)Helfat and Peteraf, 2003; Mahoney, 1995; Makadok, 2001). A maintenance/protection (MP).resource is a tangible or intangible asset. Resources “can be valuedand traded—such as a brand, a patent, a parcel of land, or a license” 1.3.1. Efficient acquisition (EA)(Hoopes et al., 2003, p. 890). Individual employee skills are also Firms must possess resources before they can create value withresources (Hoopes et al., 2003; Lieberman and Montgomery, those resources. However, the firm must pay less for resources1998). “Resources are converted into final products or services by than they are worth. EA ensures that the price (P) the firm chargesusing a wide range of other firm assets and bonding mechanisms” customers exceeds the firms resource costs (C). Lower resource[emphasis in original] (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993, p. 35). acquisition costs allow firms to sell products profitably at prices On the other hand, capabilities are “…a firms capacity to low enough to entice people to buy. If a firm fails to hold down thedeploy Resources…using organizational processes, to effect a acquisition costs (C), competitors that minimize acquisition costsdesired end” [emphasis in original] (Amit and Schoemaker, can offer the same value at a lower price.1993, p. 35). A capability is intangible; firms cannot quantify(i.e., “value”) their capabilities. A capability is a firms capacity 1.3.2. Bundling/combining (BC)to undertake a specific activity (Hoopes et al., 2003; Lieberman Following acquisition, the firm creates customer value byand Montgomery, 1998). Under this framework, resource man- “fusing” single resources into complex products. These offeringsagement is a capability. Resource management is the set of must provide customer value that exceeds the cost paid by thestrategic choices concerning the firms tangible and intangible firm (V N C). If a firms strategist succeeds at BC, the firm attainsassets. So strategists can use resource management to generate a complex set of “higher order resources” that are difficult forSCA (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Penrose 1959). rivals to imitate (Morgan, 2000; Morgan and Hunt, 1999).1.2. Value, price, and cost: The VPC framework 1.3.3. Positioning (POS) POS shapes the consumers view of a product (Ries and SCA does not directly flow from resources that are valuable, Trout, 1986). Even if a firm attains resources at good prices andrare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Priem and Butler, 2001; combines them into a desirable product, the product still mayBarney, 1991). Instead, “the relative difference in the amount of not sell. The firm must also create an image (or position) for thevalue generated by firms… is elemental to competitive advantage” product that makes consumers want to buy. POS serves to[emphasis in original] (Priem and Butler, 2001, p. 29). Firm gene- widen the difference between value and price (V − P).rated “value is the fundamental concept determining the extent of Customers will prefer a firms offerings as the gap betweencompetitive advantage” [emphasis in original] (Priem and Butler, the value and price of the offerings widens relative to the gap2001, p. 29). between the value and price of competing offerings. Hoopes et al. (2003) explain values role in the RBV througha bargaining model that consists of value, price, and cost (see 1.3.4. Maintenance/protection (MP)also Tirole, 1988). This model illustrates both the buyers and The unique sequence of EA → BC → POS that producesthe sellers perspectives. Here, buyer and seller bargain over a superior results at one point in time may not provide customerproducts price (P); the product provides value (V) to the buyer value at another time. Firms, therefore, must continually adjustand costs the seller some sum (C) to produce. “Value is the price their resource management strategies (i.e., must maintain theira buyer is willing to pay…” [emphasis in original] (Hoopes resources). Similarly, managers must protect resources; man-et al., 2003, p. 891). Therefore, for the customer, value provided agers cannot allow competitors to duplicate their resources.must exceed the products price (V − P). The seller wants to Firms use MP to realign their resource management decisionsmaximize the difference in the products price and cost (P − C). regarding EA, BC, and POS. This paper differentiates between MP“The suppliers resources and capabilities, in turn, influence the activities relating to efficient acquisition (MPEA), bundling/value of the good to the buyer and/or the cost of producing it… combining (MPBC), and positioning resources (MPPOS). There-[T]he firm that produces the largest difference between value fore, the firm uses MP to preserve the gaps between price and costand cost has an advantage over rivals” (Hoopes et al., 2003, (P −C), value and cost (V –C), and value and price (V –P).p. 891–892). “Value arises from the firms resources and how those 2. Crafting first-mover advantage (FMA)resources are managed” [emphasis in original] (Morgan, 2000,p. 496). One may surmise, therefore, that resource management If a firm a) minimizes resource procurement costs (C) and b)is the key “lever” the strategist uses to create SCA. extracts value (V) from those resources in excess of the resources
  • R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–932 927cost (C), the firm efficiently acquired resources (Morgan, 2000). Kodaks early success illustrates the benefits of linkingSuppose a first movers resource costs are higher than the resource superior BC to superior POS:costs of rival firms. If the first mover offers more customer value “[George Eastman]…designed a system whereby consumersthan the rivals offer from a given set of resources, an FMA is still took pictures with a returnable camera, mailed in the camerapossible. However, high pioneer resource costs provide a chance with the exposed film for developing, and received thefor imitators to compete using a low cost strategy. developed pictures and a reloaded camera. The companys In the airline industry established “legacy carriers” (such as slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest,’ convincedDelta, United, and American) have higher costs than newer, consumers that photography was finally available to“discount carriers” (such as Southwest and JetBlue) (Anony- amateurs” (Tellis and Golder, 1996, p. 68).mous, 2005). These older airlines inefficiently acquire theirresources. As a result, many legacy carriers have declared Therefore:bankruptcy and cut costs (Manor and Chandler, 2003). P3A. Firms that combine high skill in a) acquiring resources Hence, the following propositions: efficiently, b) bundling/combining individual resources, andP1A. The level of firm resource costs is negatively correlated c) appropriately positioning resources are more likely towith the firms chances of becoming a product pioneer. become market pioneers than are firms that lack these three skills.P1B. The level of firm resource costs is negatively correlatedwith the firms chances of becoming a market pioneer. In the short run, market pioneering should increase the firms sales, at least while the new product enjoys a monopoly (P3A).P1C. The level of firm resource costs is negatively correlated However, this is by no means analogous to a first-mover ad-with the firms chances of attaining a first-mover advantage vantage. Successful market pioneering is certain to attract rivals;(FMA). as noted, few market pioneers retain market leadership. So the BC allows the firm to become a product pioneer. To become a short-term value created by the market pioneer for any givenproduct pioneer, a firm goes beyond resource acquisition and segment is a function of the pioneers skill at providing value touses BC to create “higher-order” resources (Morgan, 2000; that segment through a) efficient resource acquisition, b)Morgan and Hunt, 1999). BC helps link resource acquisition and bundling/combining resources, and c) positioning resources —the products that the firm eventually sells. If a strategist ignores or:bundling/combining he or she will likely be stuck with a set ofincompatible resources (Wernerfelt, 1984). STCVSEG ¼ f ðFMVEA ; FMVBC ; FMVPOS Þ Though not the product pioneers, Matsushita, JVC, and Sonywere the first companies to market VCRs successfully to the STCVSEG short-term customer value for a given segmentmass market (Tellis and Golder, 1996). Superior BC was central FMVEA value created by the first mover through efficientto their success. “At JVC, Yuma Shiraishi, manager of video resource acquisitionrecorder development, provided just a few guidelines to his FMVBC value created by the first mover through bundling/engineers: develop a machine that could sell for $500, while combiningusing little tape and retaining high quality picture” (Tellis and FMVPOS value created by the first mover through positioningGolder, 1996, p. 68). Taken together, this bundle of resourcespropelled these three firms to a dominant position in the VCR Suppose the pioneer enjoys a monopoly in a new productmarket. In summary: market. Here one need only consider the value created by the pioneer. The amount of value the pioneer creates for a givenP2. Firms that combine high skill in a) acquiring resources segment through these three steps determines whether thatefficiently and b) bundling/combining individual resources into segment buys the pioneers offering. If rivals subsequently enterhigher-order resources are more likely to become product the market, one also must consider consumer reaction to thepioneers than are firms that lack these two skills. competing products. In summary: A firm that acquires a valuable set of resources and uniquely P3B. Firms that combine high skill in a) acquiring resourcesbundles/combines them may well become a product pioneer. Still, efficiently, b) bundling/combining individual resources, and c)no financial benefit accrues until the firm offers that bundle of appropriately positioning resources will have higher short-runresources for sale; (i.e., the firm must also become a market sales of new products than will firms that lack these three To sell new products successfully, market pioneers mustensure that they create the proper image – or positioning (POS) – As time passes, the firms initial resource base will “age”;for the new product. also, successful market pioneering will almost certainly spur However, good BC, ironically, may complicate POS. New market entry by rivals. The first three steps of the resourceproducts may be extremely difficult to position (Suarez and management process (EA → BC → POS) cannot provide long-Lanzolla, 2005). The potential breakdown between BC and term customer value (LTCV). Over time, the first mover mustPOS helps explain why so many product pioneers either a) fail also maintain and protect (MP) the initial resource become market pioneers or b) become market pioneers but But how may a first mover improve firm resources afterfail to retain their market leadership. market entry? Under this framework, the first mover must
  • 928 R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–932rethink the three initial resource management decisions while protecting those resources are more likely to attain first-moverkeeping firm resources from competitors. (The labels for these advantages than are firms that lack these characteristics.three “updating” tasks are: FMVMPEA, FMVMPBC, FMVMPPOS; Fig. 1 illustrates the links between the FMA and RBVthese tasks describe the value first movers add by updating the concepts; more specifically, the Figure shows the benefits theinitial decisions regarding resource acquisition, bundling/ first mover stands to gain by successfully managing each of thecombining, and positioning respectively). four resource management tasks. In doing so, Fig. 1 describes A look at recent innovations shows that market leadership how a firm attains difficult to retain. Consider the gaming console and laptop Fig. 1 encapsulates the argument contained in the precedingcomputers: paragraphs. Resource management is a firm capability and is the “In the gaming console market…at least six generations of “lever” the firm uses to create FMA. Resource management is a technology emerged in rapid, succession, each pushing four-step process: 1) efficient acquisition (EA), 2) bundling/ forward a new winner. The same thing happened in hard combining (BC), 3) positioning (POS), and 4) maintenance/ drives, and laptop computers.…laptop technology evolved protection (MP). Firms must first efficiently acquire resources so quickly that each successor, after, briefly achieving and then bundle/combine these resources into higher order dominance, was soon supplanted itself” (Suarez and offerings; this allows the firm to create an innovative product Lanzolla, 2005, p. 126). (i.e., become a product pioneer). To create FMA the firm must also become the first firm to sell that product (i.e., become a So, long-term customer value for a given target market is a market pioneer). Positioning involves attracting customers;function of the value provided to that segment by the market positioning, therefore, allows the firm to succeed as a marketpioneers initial a) resource acquisition, b) bundling/combining, pioneer.and c) positioning and d) the market pioneers subsequent Critically, the firm must complete the resource managementefforts to maintain/protect each of those sets of resources the process. In addition to EA, BC, and POS, the firm seeking FMApioneer built in a, b, and c. Or: must also maintain and protect (MP) resources. As time elapses, firms use MP to realign their resource management decisions regarding EA, BC, and POS. Firms that combine high skill in a)LTCVSEG ¼ f ððFMVEA ; FMVMPEA Þ; ðFMVBC ; FMVMPBC Þ; acquiring resources efficiently, b) bundling/combining individ- ðFMVPOS ; FMVMPPOS ÞÞ ual resources, c) appropriately positioning resources, and d) maintaining and protecting those resources are more likely to attain and then retain FMAs than are firms that lack theseLTCVSEG long-term customer value for a given segment characteristics.FMVEA value created by the first mover through efficient resource acquisitionFMVMPEA value created by the first mover through maintain- 3. Late-mover responses ing/protecting resource stocksFMVBC value created by the first mover through bundling/ Pioneers can attain FMA; yet, in a given market, most firms combining will be followers. Research also reveals that late-market entry isFMVMPBC value created by the first mover through maintain- often profitable (c.f., Srinivasan et al., 2004). Resource ing/protecting bundles/combinations of resources management can permit late movers to “compete away” FMAs.FMVPOS value created by the first mover through positioning P5A–P5E evaluates a market in which the first mover isFMVMPPOS value created by the first mover through main- faced with a rival. For the first time, the customers have the taining/protecting positioning of firm resources option to buy from a firm other than the first mover. So, P5A– P5E examines what the first mover must do to retain market The importance of maintaining/protecting resources is leadership after competitors enter the market. The firsttwofold. First, under the RBV, resources are the foundation of movers ability to create value for a given segment is still afirm success. Second, firms may build resource stocks only over function of the firms: a) initial resource managementlong periods of time (Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Pettus, 2001). A decisions and b) subsequent attempts to maintain/protectfirm that fails to maintain resources, therefore, faces a long those resources. But here the late mover also creates value forjourney in trying to catch rival firms. the first movers target market; specifically, the late movers Research supports the importance of maintaining and pro- skill at the first three resource management tasks also offerstecting resources. Success does not flow from a static set of some level of value to the first movers customers. (The lateresources (McGee and Thomas, 1994). Similarly, scholars assert mover need not maintain/protect resources to take leadershipthat order of entry effects tend to dissipate over time (Brown and away from the pioneer but need only devise a product thatLattin, 1994; Huff and Robinson, 1994). Therefore: provides more value relative to price or cost. The late mover that elects to stay in the market for a long time will need toP4. Firms that combine high skill in a) acquiring resources maintain/protect resources.)efficiently, b) bundling/combining individual resources, c) How does a firm attain superiority when faced withappropriately positioning resources, and d) maintaining and competition? The first movers resource management skill
  • R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–932 929 Fig. 1. First-mover advantage and resource management.determines the first movers competitive position, relative to value provided to the segment by the pioneers initial resourcehow well rivals manage their resources. Suppose the first management process (EA → BC → POS) and the subsequentmover provides more value to a given segment. Here the first value created by maintaining/protecting the resource position ismover can expect to “best” rivals. What if the late mover greater than the total customer relative value provided to theprovides more value to a particular segment? The first movers segment by the late mover through resource management (EAleadership will be at an end. A situation in which the pioneer → BC → POS).and the late mover provide equal value to a customer segmentis possible; but equality will be temporary. In open markets, as ½VSEGfm ¼ f ððFMVEA ; FMVMPEA Þ; ðFMVBC ; FMVMPBC Þ;firms continually alter their resource bases, customer valueprovided also changes. ðFMVPOS ; FMVMPPOS Þފ N Consider General Motors. GMs managers claim that theyhave many plans aimed at restoring GMs profitability. Seen ½VSEGlm ¼ f ðLMVEA ; LMVBC ; LMVPOS ފfrom this papers perspective, these initiatives fall under theheadings of maintaining and protecting GMs resource acqui- VSEGfm customer value first mover provides for a givensition (MPEA), bundling/combining (MPBC), and positioning segment(MPPOS) capabilities. FMVEA value created by the first mover through efficient General Motors has taken a number of steps to cut resource resource acquisitionacquisition costs (i.e., more efficiently acquire resources). GMs FMVMPEA value created by the first mover through maintain-management has pressed a major supplier, Delphi, to cut prices ing/protecting resource stocks(McCracken, 2006). Similarly, GM has tried to bundle/combine FMVBC value created by the first mover through bundling/resources differently to produce better cars. GM recently an- combiningnounced plans to spend over half a billion dollars to improve FMVMPBC value created by the first mover through maintain-engines, transmissions, metal stamping, and body shops (Chon, ing/protecting bundles/combinations of resources2006). Finally, GM has been using auto shows as venues to FMVPOS value created by the first mover through positioningreposition GM as a company that can sell more than trucks and FMVMPPOS value created by the first mover through main-sport-utility vehicles (Lundegaard, 2006). taining/protecting positioning of firm resources So: VSEGlm customer value late mover provides for a given segmentP5A. A first mover will outperform a given late mover in LMVEA value created by the late mover through efficientserving a given segment as long as: the total customer relative resource acquisition
  • 930 R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–932LMVBC value created by the late mover through bundling/ Kodaks multi-faceted innovation made catching up much more combining difficult for competitors. Consequently:LMVPOS value created by the late mover through positioning P5D. Late movers that add value through more than one Under this framework, then, no “absolute advantage” to market resource management task will be more successful than thosepioneering exists. Hence, “A firm should focus its resources on the that add value through a single resource management task.scenario under which it has the strongest position relative to itscompetitors” (Wernerfelt and Karnani, 1987, p. 191). Likewise: P5B, P5C, and P5D pertain to what Schumpeter (1942) refers to as “creative destruction.” What if a latecomer innovates on “…Some firms excel at leading whereas others excel at multiple resource management activities? Such a firm has the following, unless the effects of managerial skills are taken into potential to follow in the footsteps of those firms that have account in estimating the impact of pioneering on per- “revolutionized the economic structure by destroying the old formance, one might mistakenly conclude that, for all firms, and creating a new one” (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 83). the act of pioneering itself will lead to an unambiguous Scholars state that “Firms develop resources over time in a advantage” (Kerin et al., 1992, p. 48; Moore et al., 1991). complex, path dependent process” (Pettus, 2001, p. 889; see also Dierickx and Cool, 1989). Hence, in the short run, firms find it Kerin et al. (1992) propose that market changes tend to weaken difficult to “compete away” rivals advantages when thoseFMAs. This framework helps explain why they are correct. advantages are based on complex, difficult-to-imitate resources.Assume a late mover enters a market with a radically-innovative The longer a late mover waits to enter a given market, therefore,product. The new product may destroy the value created by the the longer the first mover can progress down the resourcefirst movers resource base. Hence, the length of first-mover development path. Research supports this assertion; Robinsonadvantages will be inversely proportional to the rate of and Min (2002) and Coeurderoy and Durand (2004) discoveredtechnological change in an industry (Suarez and Lanzolla, 2005). that the temporary monopoly enjoyed by a first mover contributes Scholars suggest that severe market disruptions after market to the first movers longevity in the marketplace.pioneering do not solely stem from late movers entering the At least two important qualifications exist in regard to themarket. Consumer changes also play a role. Shoppers who wait preceding paragraph. First, what if a first mover enters a marketto buy improved versions of a formerly-new product may have and then “stands pat” with the original set of resources? Thisentirely different preferences than the early adopters who pur- firm will waste the chance to make the resources more difficultchased from the pioneer. After pioneering, both market and for late movers to imitate. Second, think about a late mover thatproduct changes are likely; both changes challenge first movers enters a market on the basis of a radical innovation; the latethat attempt to retain their initial advantages. Hence: mover may not need to spend time copying an incumbents outdated resource base.P5B. The amount of product change subsequent to market In regard to the first qualification, in most cases even apioneering will be positively related to the probability of a late relatively stable resource base will change with time; undermover becoming the leader in that market. these circumstances, time elapsed between market pioneeringP5C. The amount of market change subsequent to market and late-mover entry is still a positive for the incumbent.pioneering will be positively related to the probability of a late Similarly, for the second qualification, radical innovations canmover becoming the leader in that market. certainly destroy incumbents. True radical innovations, how- ever, should be relatively rare; copying the first movers How may the first mover compete after a rival successfully resource base (or parts of this base) should be attractive to mostenters with a radical innovation? The only feasible means would late movers. So:be a massive investment in a new set of resources. (Morespecifically, the first mover would emphasize: FMVMPEA, P5E. Time elapsed between market pioneering and competitorsFMVMPBC, FMVPOS). Even for those first movers possessing attempts to enter a particular market will be positively linked tothe funds needed to realign their resources, such a change will be the duration of the market pioneers SCA.painful. Indeed, “incumbent inertia” is the rule when late moversenter (Lieberman and Montgomery, 1998). Consider a late mover that wants to “compete away” the first 4. Conclusionmovers initial advantages. This framework reveals that thedegree of change introduced by any single innovation is not the During the debates surrounding FMA, critics have pointedonly factor determining how strongly the latecomer challenges out that market pioneering is not synonymous with first moverthe first mover. The quantity of innovations by the latecomer is advantage. This paper examines the tenuous links betweenalso important. A late entrant that attacks by successfully inno- market-entry timing and SCA. Market-entry timing is not avating on more than one resource management task creates a panacea, but is instead one part of firm strategy. Therefore, thissituation in which the first mover must make more changes (i.e., paper considers both the impact of a) creating FMAs and b)invest more money and time) in an effort to retain the FMA. managing FMAs subsequent to market pioneering. PreviousAgain, Kodak in the 1800s was a firm that innovated on multi- frameworks tend to focus on the former issue while ignoring theple resource-management tasks (Tellis and Golder, 1996); latter.
  • R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–932 931 While the paper makes no specific predictions as to how agement skill would be a better measure than time spent onmany first movers will retain the lead in their markets, the paper the resource management tasks.contrbutes to a growing body of work that helps explain why so Measurement of market-entry timing has proven difficult forfew first movers succeed in the long run. Pioneers often invest scholars. Golder and Tellis advocate using the “historical method”so heavily in the resources needed to bring an innovation to to study FMA (1992). In the historical method, scholars searchmarket that they cannot bear to adopt a new set of resources as archival material to collect longitudinal data about past eventsthe market shifts. But, the wise pioneer will “bite the bullet” and (Golder, 2000). Given that Golder and Tellis published severalreinvent the firms resource base (Chandy and Tellis, 1998). strong studies using the historical method, other scholars shouldIndeed, research shows that incumbents have chances to in- also consider adopting the historical method to study FMAs.novate after market entry (Chandy and Tellis, 2000). 4.3. Extensions4.1. Managerial implications The possible extensions of this study are vast; the following A firm interested in attaining and maintaining a competitive suggestions by no means constitute a comprehensive list.advantage by pursuing a position as a market or product pioneer Readers should note that the framework in this paperneeds to focus on effective resource management via EA (P1A, assumes that the late mover and the first mover compete only toP1B, and P1C), BC (P2), POS (P3A, P3B), and MP (P4). In serve a single market segment. Obviously, many companiesaddition, prospective first movers should ensure that the four serve more than one “type” of customer; if a late mover canresource management steps are consistent with the firms stra- distinguish more than one segment in the first movers customertegy (e.g., differentiation, low-cost). Also, the firms resource base, then the framework would change considerably. The latemanagement process must evolve while remaining congruent mover could focus on serving only one “sub-segment” of thewith the firms strategy (whether or not the strategy remains first movers market, rather than attempting to compete forconstant or evolves over time). precisely the same segment as the first mover. By narrowing the Strategists must tailor the firms resource management focus, the late mover could create a situation where the firstcapabilities to attain and maintain an FMA. For instance, in a mover would have difficulty defending the entire target market.stable environment, MP becomes a key step to protect One extension would be to further consider this type of late-organizational resources. In a more dynamic environment, EA entry strategy.becomes a key — a firm should focus on attaining necessary Similarly, the framework compares the first mover to a singleresources at the lowest possible costs. In any environment, BC late mover. But what if many firms enter the market? If moreallows the firm to produce a desirable offering for the target than one late mover enters, the first mover has a much moremarket; similarly, in any environment POS explains to the target difficult task ahead. Different segments will value the same setmarket why the firms offerings are relevant and desirable. of resources differently, and the first mover may see the originalSuperior resource management allows a firm to translate short- mass market carved into numerous small markets by multipleterm advantages (P3B) into FMAs (P4, P5A). late movers. To compete in each sub-segment, the first mover would have to devise a different resource management plan for4.2. Measurability each sub-segment. An extension should address this scenario. Another extension would be to further explore the The most valuable extension of this paper would be to test association between Morgans (2000) four resource manage-the propositions. Such a study would require measures of the ment tasks and customer value. While customer value is atwo major concepts under study here: resource management function of these tasks, the precise manner in which theseand FMA. Much discussion revolves around appropriate resource management tasks coalesce (additively, multiplica-measurement when using the RBV; fortunately, Finney et al. tively, etc.) to produce customer value is left as an empirical(2005) measures each of the four steps in resource man- question. Such a study would likely require longitudinal dataagement. These authors measured the amount of time stra- measuring entry timing, resource management, and perfor-tegists spent on each of Morgans four resource management mance from multiple firms.tasks. (Specifically, they asked respondents what percentage The above paragraphs, therefore, constitute what Wernerfeltof their time managing resources was devoted to each of the (in a somewhat different context) called “a first cut at a huge canfour resource management tasks; all answers summed to of worms” (1984, p. 180). Nevertheless, Lieberman and100%.) These authors then linked time spent on resource Montgomery (1998) called for an integration of the RBV andmanagement to firm strategy. (Specifically, they tested wheth- the FMA literatures; this study answers their a firms overall strategy (low cost or differentiation) pre-dicts the firms emphasis on each of the four resource Referencesmanagement tasks. Because of the constant sum used tomeasure the dependent variable, the authors tested their hy- Amit R, Schoemaker PJH. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg Manage J 1993;14(1):33–46.potheses using seemingly-unrelated regression.) A similar set Anonymous. Few survivors predicted: why most airlines are caught in a tailspin.of measures would work for the framework outlined above; Strateg Manage at Wharton; 2005. Feb 9; Available from: http://knowledge.but authors might want to consider whether resource man-
  • 932 R.Z. Finney et al. / Journal of Business Research 61 (2008) 925–932Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage Mahoney JT, Pandian JR. The resource-based view within the conversation of 1991;17(1):99–120. strategic management. Strateg Manage J 1992;13(5):363–80.Brown CL, Lattin JM. Investigating the relationship between time-in-market Makadok R. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability and pioneering advantage. Manage Sci 1994;40(10):1361–9. views of rent creation. Strateg Manage J 2001;22(5):387–401.Chandy RK, Tellis GJ. Organizing for radical product innovation. J Mark Res Manor R, Chandler S. United pilots face 30% cut in pay: discount carrier allowed 1998;35:474–87 [November]. in deal. Orlando Sentinel; 2003. March 29; Available from: http://www.Chandy RK, Tellis GJ. The incumbents curse: incumbency, size, and radical,0,3421. product innovation. J Mark 2000;64:1–17 [July]. story.Chon G. GM to upgrade five Michigan plants. The Wall Street Journal Online; 2006. McCracken J. Delphi delays effort to cancel union contracts. Wall St J 2006;247: Feb13; Available from: A4 [February 18]. html. McGee J, Thomas H. Sequential entry paths and industry evolution. In: DaemsCoeurderoy R, Durand R. Leveraging the advantage of early entry: proprietary H, Thomas H, editors. Strategic groups, strategic moves, and performance. technologies versus cost leadership. J Bus Res 2004;57:583–90 [June]. Pergamon Press; 1994. p. 6–29.Dierickx I, Cool K. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive Moore MJ, Boulding W, Goodstein RC. Pioneering and market share: is entry timing advantage. Manage Sci 1989;35(12):1504–11. endogenous and does it matter? J Mark Res 1991;28:97–104 [February].Dutta S, Narasimhan O, Rajiv S. Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: Morgan RM. Relationship marketing and marketing strategy: the evolution of methodology and empirical application. Strateg Manage J 2005;26(3):277–85. relationship strategy within the organization. In: Sheth JN, Parvatiyar A,Finney RZ, Campbell ND, Powell CM. Strategies and resources: pathways to editors. Handbook of relationship marketing. Thousand Oaks, California: success? J Bus Res 2005;58(12):1721–9. SAGE Publications; 2000. p. 481–504.Golder PN. Historical method in marketing research with new evidence on long- Morgan RM, Hunt S. Relationship-based competitive advantage: the role of term marketing share stability. J Mark Res 2000;27(2):156–72. relationship marketing in marketing strategy. J Bus Res 1999;46:281–90Golder PN, Tellis GJ. Do pioneers really have long-term advantages? A [November]. historical analysis. MSI Report 92-124. Cambridge MA: Marketing Science Penrose ET. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Oxford University Institute; 1992. Press; 1959.Greenley GE, Hooley GJ, Rudd JM. Market orientation in a multiple stakeholder Pettus ML. The resource-based view as a developmental growth process: orientation context: implications for marketing capabilities and assets. J Bus evidence from the deregulated trucking industry. Acad Manage J 2001;44 Res 2005;58:1483–94 [November]. (4):878–96.Helfat CE, Peteraf MA. The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Priem RL, Butler JE. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for Strateg Manag J 2003;24(10):997–1010. strategic management research. Acad Manage Rev 2001;28(1):22–40.Hoopes DG, Madsen TL, Walker G. Guest editors introduction to the special Ries A, Trout J. Positioning. New York: Warner Books; 1986 [1st revised ed.]. issue: why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive Robinson WT, Min S. Is the first to market the first to fail? Empirical evidence heterogeneity. Strateg Manage J 2003;24(10):889–902. for industrial goods businesses. J Mark Res 2002;39:120–8 [February].Huff LC, Robinson WT. Note: the impact of lead time and years of competitive Schumpeter JA. Capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard rivalry on pioneer market share advantage. Managet Sci 1994;14(3):212–21. University Press; 1942.Kerin RA, Varadarajan PR, Peterson RA. First-mover advantage: a synthesis, Srinivasan R, Lilien GL, Rangaswamy A. First in, first out? The effects of conceptual framework, and research propositions. J Mark 1992;56:33–52 network externalities on pioneer survival. J Mark 2004;68:41–58 [January]. [October]. Suarez FF, Lanzolla G. The half-truth of first-mover advantage. Harv Bus RevLieberman MB, Montgomery DB. First-mover (dis)advantages: retrospective and 2005;83:121–7 [April]. link with the resource-based view. Strateg Manage J 1998;19(12):1111–25. Tellis GJ, Golder PN. First to market, first to fail? Real causes of enduringLieberman MB, Montgomery DB. First-mover advantages. Strateg Manage J market leadership. Sloan Manage Rev 1996;37:65–75 [Winter]. 1988;9:41–58 [Summer]. Tirole J. The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1988.Lundegaard K. Detroit stuck in neutral: as gas prices rise again, big threes Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manage J 1984;5 current products dont match high-MPG talk. Wall St J 2006;247:B1–2 (2):171–80. [January 26]. Wernerfelt B, Karnani A. Competitive strategy under uncertainty. StrategMahoney JT. The management of resources and the resources of management. Manage J 1987;8(2):187–94. J Bus Res 1995;33:91–101 [June].