VRIN/VRIO Framework - Barney (1991)

Theory Publication Information

Citation Information

Why Was the Model Created?

Barney (1991) was written to give the resource-based view the same analytical tractability that industrial-organization economics (Porter, 1980, 1985) had given to external analysis. Wernerfelt (1984), Rumelt (1984), Penrose (1959), and others had argued that internal resources could be a source of competitive advantage, but the literature lacked a systematic set of empirical indicators to distinguish resources that generate sustained advantage from those that do not. Barney’s paper explicitly positions itself as a complement to environmental models: the resource-based model and industry-structure models “focus on different aspects of the same phenomenon” (Figure 1, p.100).

Barney identifies the key analytical move as relaxing two assumptions underlying most strategy theorizing at the time (p.101): (i) that firms within an industry control strategically identical resources (resource homogeneity), and (ii) that resource differences are short-lived because resources can be acquired freely in factor markets (resource mobility). The paper shows that if both assumptions hold, sustained competitive advantage is impossible (p.103-105). Sustained competitive advantage is therefore only possible when firm resources are heterogeneously distributed and imperfectly mobile.

Given those two assumptions, Barney (p.105-106) proposes four empirical indicators that a resource has the potential to generate sustained competitive advantage: it must be (a) valuable, (b) rare, (c) imperfectly imitable, and (d) such that the firm’s resources have no strategically equivalent substitutes. This four-attribute model is now widely called “VRIN”, though the acronym itself is not in the paper. The paper applies the model to several candidate sources of advantage (strategic planning, information processing systems, positive reputations) to illustrate its use. Barney later (1995, Academy of Management Executive; 1997, book) replaces the Non-substitutability criterion with an Organization criterion, producing the VRIO framework used in most strategy textbooks today.

What Does the Model Measure?

Barney (1991) is a conceptual paper that proposes the four attributes as “empirical indicators” (p.106) of how heterogeneous and immobile a firm’s resources are. The paper does not provide scales, latent constructs, or statistical operationalizations. Each attribute is a yes/no question about a specific resource:

• Value: Does this resource let the firm implement strategies that exploit opportunities or neutralize threats (p.106)?
• Rareness: Is the resource held by fewer firms than the number required to generate perfect competition dynamics (p.107)?
• Imitability: Can firms without the resource obtain it at a cost disadvantage, because of unique historical conditions, causal ambiguity, or social complexity (p.107-112)?
• Substitutability: Is the resource such that there are no strategically equivalent substitutes that are themselves valuable but neither rare nor imperfectly imitable (p.111-112)?

The paper applies these questions to three candidate sources of sustained competitive advantage (p.112-117): strategic planning processes, information processing systems, and positive reputations. In each case Barney walks through the four attributes to argue which versions of the resource have potential to generate sustained advantage and which do not.

Later refinement: Barney (1995, Academy of Management Executive; 1997 book) replaces Substitutability with Organization, producing VRIO. Organization asks whether the firm’s structures, policies, and processes are arranged such that the firm can actually exploit the resource (not merely possess it). The substitute concern does not disappear; it is folded into the Imitability criterion in the later operationalization.

Core Concepts and Definitions

Barney (1991) defines three central terms before introducing the four attributes (p.101-103):

• Firm resources:“all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge, etc. controlled by a firm that enable the firm to conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness” (p.101, drawing on Daft, 1983). Barney groups firm resources into three categories following Tomer (1987) and related work: physical capital resources (Williamson, 1975), human capital resources (Becker, 1964), and organizational capital resources (Tomer, 1987).
• Competitive advantage:“a firm is said to have a competitive advantage when it is implementing a value creating strategy not simultaneously being implemented by any current or potential competitors” (p.102). Following Baumol, Panzar, and Willig (1982), “competitors” includes both current and potential competitors, not just same-industry rivals.
• Sustained competitive advantage:a competitive advantage that persists after “efforts to duplicate that advantage have ceased” (p.102, drawing on Lippman & Rumelt, 1982 and Rumelt, 1984). This is an equilibrium-based, not a calendar-based, definition: sustained advantage is not defined by “lasts forever” (p.103) but by being robust against duplication attempts. Schumpeterian shocks can still competitively displace a sustained advantage.

Two assumptions (p.101, 105) drive the whole framework:

• Resource heterogeneity: Different firms within an industry may control different strategically relevant resources.
• Resource immobility: These resource differences can be stable over time - resources are not freely tradeable in factor markets at their full discounted value.

Under perfect homogeneity and mobility, sustained competitive advantage is impossible (the paper’s core argument, p.103-105). Under heterogeneity and immobility, it becomes possible - and the four attributes (value, rareness, imitability, substitutability) identify which resources actually generate it.

Preceding Models or Theories

Barney (1991) explicitly cites the following as foundational to the resource-based perspective the paper develops (pp.99-101):

• Penrose (1959) - The Theory of the Growth of the Firm: Supplies the view of firms as bundles of productive resources and the link between resource availability and firm growth. Cited on p.101 as one of the three foundational works.
• Wernerfelt (1984, 1989) - A resource-based view of the firm: Wernerfelt’s paper (and its 1989 follow-up) provides the direct precursor, introducing the concept of resource position barrier and the resource-product matrix. Barney credits Wernerfelt alongside Rumelt and Penrose as the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Barney (1991) does notattribute the VRIN criteria to Wernerfelt; Wernerfelt’s paper introduces resource position barriers rather than the four-attribute framework.
• Rumelt (1984) - Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm: Cited on p.101 as the third foundational work; provides the emphasis on firm-level idiosyncratic resources as the primary driver of sustained advantage.
• Porter (1980, 1985) - Competitive Strategy / Competitive Advantage: Barney positions the resource-based view as complementaryto Porter’s environmental/industry-structure models (Figure 1, p.100). The paper uses Porter’s framework for environmental opportunities and threats; Porter is cited throughout for specific arguments about industry barriers and positioning.
• Lippman & Rumelt (1982) - Uncertain Imitability: Supplies the concept of causal ambiguity (p.108-110), one of Barney’s three named mechanisms of imperfect imitability. Also supplies the equilibrium definition of sustained competitive advantage used on p.102.
• Dierickx & Cool (1989) - Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage: Supplies the concept of social complexity as a driver of imperfect imitability (p.110) and the asset-stock accumulation view. Cited by Barney as an independently developed but complementary treatment of the imitability problem.
• Hirshleifer (1980) and Barney (1986a, 1986b): Supply the equilibrium-analytic apparatus for reasoning about sustained advantage, Schumpeterian shocks, and the role of factor-market imperfections. Cited on p.102-103 and throughout the imitability discussion.

Describe The Model

Barney (1991) develops the framework in three steps (Figure 1, p.100, and text pp.101-117): (1) define firm resources and competitive advantage, (2) show that sustained competitive advantage requires resource heterogeneity and resource immobility, and (3) specify the four attributes of firm resources (value, rareness, imperfect imitability, non-substitutability) that together constitute empirical indicators of the potential for sustained competitive advantage.

The four attributes (Barney, 1991, pp.105-112)

• Value (V):A resource is valuable when it enables a firm to conceive of or implement strategies that improve its efficiency and effectiveness, or that exploit opportunities or neutralize threats in the firm’s environment (p.106). Not all resources are valuable; some may prevent a firm from conceiving of valuable strategies or may generate only competitive parity.
• Rareness (R): A resource is rare when the number of competing firms possessing it is less than the number needed to generate perfect-competition dynamics (p.106-107). Barney notes that valuable-but-not-rare resources can still ensure survival at competitive parity.
• Imperfect imitability (I):Firm resources can be imperfectly imitable for one or a combination of three reasons (Barney, 1991, p.107, citing Lippman & Rumelt, 1982 and Dierickx & Cool, 1989):
  • Unique historical conditions(p.107-108): a firm’s ability to obtain a resource depends on path-dependent historical conditions (Ansoff, 1965; Learned et al., 1969; Stinchcombe, 1965; David, 1985).
  • Causal ambiguity(p.108-110): the link between a firm’s resources and its sustained competitive advantage is not understood or understood only imperfectly (Lippman & Rumelt, 1982; Reed & DeFillippi, 1990).
  • Social complexity(p.110-112): the resource is a socially complex phenomenon (interpersonal relations, culture, reputation) beyond systematic managerial influence (Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Hambrick, 1987; Porter, 1980; Klein, Crawford & Alchian, 1978).
• Substitutability (N - non-substitutable):Even if a resource is valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable, it may not be a source of sustained advantage if there exist strategically equivalent substitutes that are themselves valuable but neither rare nor imperfectly imitable (p.111-112). Two forms of substitution discussed: (i) similar resources (the firm’s resource can be replaced by a comparable resource at a competitor); (ii) different resources that can be used to implement the same strategy.

Applications in the paper (pp.112-117)

Barney applies the four-attribute framework to three candidate sources of sustained competitive advantage:

• Strategic planning and SCA (pp.112-114): Formal strategic planning processes by themselves are generally not rare or imperfectly imitable and thus are not sources of sustained advantage. Informal planning processes embedded in socially complex managerial interactions can be sources of sustained advantage.
• Information processing systems and SCA (pp.114-115):Computer hardware and software purchasable on the open market are not rare or imperfectly imitable. Information processing systems deeply embedded in the firm’s informal and formal management decision-making processes can be rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable.
• Positive reputations and SCA (pp.115-117): Firm reputations can be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable (because of unique historical conditions and social complexity), and non-substitutable, qualifying as a source of sustained competitive advantage.

From VRIN (1991) to VRIO (1995, 1997)

Barney (1995) in the Academy of Management Executive, and Barney (1997) in the textbook Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, replace the Non-substitutability criterion with an Organization criterion. The question becomes: is the firm organized - via its structure, formal reporting, management control systems, and compensation policies - to exploit the resource? Substitutability concerns do not disappear; they are subsumed into the Imitability criterion (a resource is imitable in practice if an easily-available substitute can replace it). Most textbook presentations today use the VRIO framework rather than the VRIN framework, though the underlying logic is the same.

Competitive implications (VRIO decision logic)

• Not valuable: Competitive disadvantage. The resource is a cost or constraint, not an advantage source.
• Valuable, not rare: Competitive parity. The resource is a survival condition but not an advantage source.
• Valuable, rare, but imitable: Temporary competitive advantage. Advantage erodes as competitors acquire or develop the resource.
• Valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, but not organized to exploit:Unrealized competitive advantage. The firm holds the resource but cannot capture its rents. VRIO (1995) treatment.
• Valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and organized: Sustained competitive advantage. The resource meets all conditions of the equilibrium-based SCA definition (p.102-103).

Main Strengths

• Operationalizes RBV concepts: Provides specific analytical criteria transforming abstract RBV ideas into practical, testable framework applicable to real strategic situations.
• Decision-tree clarity: The framework clearly specifies what competitive implications follow from different combinations of VRIO attributes, providing actionable guidance for strategic decisions.
• Empirically testable: By providing specific questions managers can ask about resources, VRIO becomes amenable to empirical research and validation in ways the abstract RBV was not.
• Teachable framework: The logic is sufficiently simple that strategic management students can apply VRIO analysis to real firms, identifying which resources provide sustainable advantage and why.
• Bridges theory and practice: Balances theoretical sophistication with practical applicability, making the framework valuable both for academic research and management application.
• Comprehensive resource scope: Applies to all resource types: physical, financial, human, organizational, and intellectual property, providing universal analytical framework.
• Addresses organization explicitly: By including organization as fourth criterion, framework recognizes that possessing resources alone is insufficient without effective exploitation systems.
• Powerful explanatory capability: Successfully explains why firms with similar resources achieve different performance, why competitive advantages erode, and how organizational changes influence advantage sustainability.

Main Weaknesses

• Post-hoc rationalization risk: Evaluating resources retrospectively after performance outcomes may result in tautological reasoning: inferring resources are valuable because firms with those resources succeed.
• Measurement challenges: Operationalizing value, rarity, inimitability, and organization in practice creates challenges. Determining quantitatively whether a resource is rare or inimitable requires subjective judgment.
• Causal ambiguity persistence: VRIO acknowledges causal ambiguity as source of inimitability but provides limited guidance on how to overcome ambiguity to understand advantage mechanisms.
• Limited attention to resource combinations: Framework analyzes individual resources but provides less guidance on how resources combine and complement each other in creating advantage.
• Imitation underestimation: Framework may underestimate how readily competitors acquire similar resources through acquisitions, hiring, licensing, or rapid technological development.
• Dynamic environment guidance limited: Framework emphasizes sustainable advantage from inimitable resources but provides less guidance for rapidly changing environments where resource value is short-lived.
• Organizational criteria vagueness:While adding organization as fourth criterion addresses a limitation, the criterion remains somewhat vague. What constitutes being “organized” requires interpretation.
• Substitution underappreciated: While substitution is acknowledged conceptually, the framework gives it less explicit attention than inimitability. In practice, resource substitutes may limit advantage.

Key Contributions

Barney (1991) is a specific conceptual contribution within a larger RBV tradition. Its contributions, as stated by the paper and subsequent literature, are:

• Four-attribute framework (VRIN): Introduced a parsimonious set of empirical indicators - value, rareness, imperfect imitability, non-substitutability - that collectively distinguish resources generating sustained competitive advantage from those that do not (p.105-112). This was the first explicit and systematic list of such criteria in the RBV literature.
• Equilibrium definition of sustained competitive advantage:Redefined “sustained” not as calendar duration but as robustness to duplication efforts (p.102-103), adapting the Lippman & Rumelt (1982) and Hirshleifer (1982) equilibrium framing. This avoids both the trivial reading (“sustained means lasts forever”) and the imprecise reading (“sustained means has lasted N years”).
• Resource heterogeneity and immobility as prerequisites: Made explicit the two assumptions (p.101, 103-105) that must hold for any resource-based explanation of sustained advantage to be coherent. This clarified what RBV commits to and what it rules out.
• Typology of imperfect imitability sources:Organized the earlier literature on why resources are hard to imitate into three named mechanisms - unique historical conditions, causal ambiguity, social complexity (p.107-112) - attributing the underlying concepts to Lippman & Rumelt (1982) and Dierickx & Cool (1989).
• Three illustrative applications:Demonstrated the framework’s use on strategic planning, information processing systems, and positive reputations (p.112-117), showing how to reason from resource description to competitive-implication conclusion.
• Positioning RBV as complement to industry analysis: Figure 1 (p.100) explicitly locates the resource-based model and environmental models of competitive impact as addressing different aspects of the same strengths-weaknesses- opportunities-threats frame, rather than competing paradigms.
• Foundation for VRIO (Barney, 1995, 1997): The four-attribute structure of Barney (1991) became the substrate for the later VRIO refinement, where Non-substitutability is replaced with Organization (folding substitution into the Imitability criterion). VRIO is the teaching-focused successor to Barney 1991, not a distinct theoretical proposal.

Internal Validity

Barney (1991) is a conceptual paper, not an empirical study. Internal validity is therefore assessed as logical coherence of the argument and fidelity to cited sources:

• Deductive chain is clean: The paper begins with two assumptions (resource heterogeneity and immobility), derives that competition with homogeneous and perfectly mobile resources cannot sustain advantage (p.103-105), and then derives the four attributes as necessary conditions for sustained advantage given heterogeneity and immobility. The four-attribute framework is a conclusion of the argument, not an assumed input.
• Equilibrium definition is well-formed:The sustained-CA definition (p.102) follows Lippman & Rumelt (1982) and is consistent with standard equilibrium reasoning (Hirshleifer, 1982). “Sustained” is defined in terms of counterfactual duplication attempts, not calendar time.
• Imitability mechanisms are explicitly attributed:Causal ambiguity is attributed to Lippman & Rumelt (1982) and Alchian (1950), unique historical conditions to path-dependency economics (Arthur, 1983; David, 1985), social complexity to Dierickx & Cool (1989) and Barney (1986b). The paper does not claim these mechanisms as original.
• Explicit scope of SCA:The paper explicitly states that SCA does not mean “lasts forever” and can be disrupted by Schumpeterian shocks or structural revolutions in an industry (p.103, citing Schumpeter 1934, 1950; Rumelt & Wensley 1981). The construct is defined carefully enough to survive trivial counterexamples.
• Three applied examples test the framework internally: The paper itself applies the VRIN criteria to three candidate sources (strategic planning, information processing systems, positive reputation) and shows the framework generates non-trivial conclusions - some versions of each resource qualify for SCA, others do not. This demonstrates the framework discriminates rather than rubber-stamping.
• Known internal-validity limitations:(i) The framework’s four attributes are yes/no questions without a formal metric, so operationalization is left to subsequent work; (ii) the causal ambiguity criterion is self-referentially problematic - if managers cannot understand their own resource-performance link, the test requires external observers to judge what the firm itself does not know (Barney acknowledges this tension on p.109); (iii) the paper is susceptible to the tautology critique that attaches to RBV more broadly (Priem & Butler, 2001, later response).

External Validity

External validity considerations concern generalizability of VRIO across diverse industries and competitive contexts:

• Empirical validation mixed:Subsequent research has produced mixed support for the framework’s predictions. Some studies confirm that VRIO-predicted advantages persist while others find limited relationship between VRIO criteria and actual performance.
• Industry differences in applicability: VRIO may better predict advantage sustainability in stable industries where resources retain value. In turbulent, rapidly changing industries, resource value erodes quickly regardless of inimitability.
• Imitation velocity variation: The framework assumes competitors take time to imitate, but some industries enable rapid imitation through technology transfer, hiring, or reverse engineering. Imitation speed varies substantially across industries.
• Measurement challenges limit generalization: Practical application requires judging whether resources are rare and inimitable, determinations requiring subjective assessment rather than objective measurement. Evaluator background influences judgments.
• Resource combination effects underexplored: While VRIO analyzes individual resources, advantage often emerges from resource combinations. Generalization of VRIO to resource bundles requires modification.
• Acquisition-based imitation: VRIO assumes firms must build inimitable resources internally, but in practice firms acquire resources through mergers, acquisitions, hiring, and licensing. The framework may underestimate imitation through acquisition.
• Organizational context variation: VRIO was developed for profit-oriented competitive firms. Applicability to non-profits, government agencies, public institutions, or heavily regulated industries may differ.
• Global and cultural generalizability: Developed in Western strategic management context. Applicability across different governance models, economic systems, and cultural contexts remains understudied.

Relevance to Technology Adoption

VRIO explains organizational advantage in technology adoption through a resource lens. Organizations adopting technology require valuable resources: capital for technology purchase, technical expertise to implement systems, organizational infrastructure enabling integration, change management capability, and leadership commitment. Organizations with these valuable resources can adopt more successfully than resource-constrained competitors. However, resource value creates advantage only if resources are rare: organizations with unique technical talent, superior change management capability, or distinctive IT infrastructure outpace competitors in technology adoption speed and effectiveness. Inimitability creates sustained adoption advantage: organizations with organizational cultures supporting innovation and change develop distinctive capabilities competitors cannot quickly copy. Finally, organization determines whether adoption capability translates to advantage: firms with unclear processes, weak project management, or misaligned incentives may possess valuable resources but fail to leverage them effectively. VRIO guides technology leadership to recognize that sustained adoption advantage requires rare, inimitable resources organized for effective technology deployment.

Barriers to Technology Adoption Identified

• Insufficient valuable resources: Lack of capital, technical talent, or infrastructure creates barriers preventing technology acquisition and implementation.
• Common resource possession: When all competitors possess equal technical capabilities and resources, none gain adoption advantage. Common resources determine competitive parity on technology adoption.
• Easily imitable capabilities: Organizations with adoption capabilities easily copied by competitors (hiring the same consultants, buying similar technology, recruiting similar talent) achieve only temporary adoption advantage.
• Organizational misalignment: Organizations possessing valuable adoption resources but lacking appropriate organizational structure, clear processes, aligned incentives, or leadership commitment fail to translate resources into adoption advantage.
• Fragmented organizational structures: Organizations with unclear authority, siloed functions, or weak integration between IT and business fail to exploit technical resources effectively.
• Inadequate organizational learning: Organizations lacking knowledge management systems, learning culture, or capability development fail to build distinctive adoption advantage from experience.

Leadership Actions the Framework Prescribes

• Identify valuable adoption resources:Systematically identify which resources (capital, talent, infrastructure, culture) are required for effective technology adoption in the organization’s context.
• Develop distinctive adoption capabilities: Build or acquire resources that competitors will find difficult to imitate: unique technical talent, distinctive organizational culture supporting change, superior change management capability.
• Create organizational structures enabling resource exploitation: Ensure organizational structures, processes, incentives, and governance enable effective leverage of technology adoption resources. Organizational misalignment negates resource value.
• Emphasize resources with naturally high causal ambiguity or social complexity: The framework suggests that adoption advantages rooted in interconnected culture, routines, and tacit know-how are structurally harder for competitors to imitate than those rooted in purchased technology alone (Barney, 1991, p.110). This is a descriptive implication, not a recommendation to obscure processes deliberately.
• Develop social capital and relationships: Build adoption advantages through organizational relationships, networks, and culture that are socially complex and difficult for competitors to transfer.
• Path-dependency cultivation: Early successful technology adoptions build experience, relationships, and expertise creating path-dependent advantage in subsequent adoptions.
• Organizational integration: Align IT, business units, finance, and HR to ensure organizational structures, processes, and systems support technology adoption objectives.
• Continuous capability development: Continuously develop and refine adoption resources (technical skills, change management expertise, organizational learning) to maintain distinctiveness and prevent competitor imitation.

Following Models or Theories

VRIO has spawned significant theoretical developments extending and refining resource-based strategy:

• Dynamic Capabilities (Teece et al., 1997): Extended VRIO by examining how organizations develop and deploy resources dynamically in changing environments. Dynamic capabilities address VRIO limitations in turbulent markets where resources quickly become obsolete.
• Knowledge-Based View Extension: Specialized VRIO focus on knowledge as critical resource, examining knowledge creation, integration, and protection as sources of sustained advantage.
• Organizational Ambidexterity: Applied resource-based thinking to understanding how organizations balance exploitation of existing advantages with exploration of new capabilities and resources.
• Capability-Based Strategy: Extended VRIO by shifting focus from individual resources to bundles and combinations of capabilities creating integrated competitive advantage.
• Strategic Human Capital: Applied VRIO framework specifically to human resources, examining how distinctive workforce capabilities create sustained advantage.
• Organizational Resilience Research: Applied resource-based thinking to understanding how resource diversity, redundancy, and organizational slack create resilience and adaptability.
• Intellectual Capital Management: Extended VRIO to intellectual resources including human capital, structural capital, and customer capital.
• Relational View and Network Resources: Extended VRIO beyond internal firm resources to inter-organizational relationships and network resources as sources of advantage.
• Organizational Learning and Routines: Deepened understanding of how organizational routines, processes, and learning become valuable, rare, and inimitable resources.

References

1. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
2. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
3. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.
4. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Free Press.
5. Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic management (pp. 556-570). Prentice-Hall.
6. Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418-438.
7. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
8. Hirshleifer, J. (1980). Price theory and applications (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
9. Baumol, W. J., Panzar, J. C., & Willig, R. D. (1982). Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. Columbia University Press.
11. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press.
12. Tomer, J. F. (1987). Organizational capital: The path to higher productivity and well-being. Praeger.
13. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. Free Press.
14. Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.
15. Daft, R. L. (1983). Organization theory and design. West.
16. Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61.
17. Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Addison-Wesley.

Further Reading

1. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.
2. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
3. Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 167-185.
4. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
5. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Series Navigation