Research question
Although there is no section of the research that clearly defines the research question, readers can easily gather from the introduction that the study sought to gain an understanding of resource-performance in resource and capabilities and how this contributes to effective performance, in this case, sales and distribution. Additionally, the researchers made readers understand that, in most cases, resources and capabilities are in most cases deployed in bundles in order to attain certain outcomes, it was necessary to examine how these bundles determine various performance outcomes. It is evident that the researchers wanted to establish the relationship between resource capabilities and performance in sales and distribution.
Theoretical framework
The authors acknowledge that the concept of an organization’s activities is interlinked. Thus, it is the synergy brought about by the interrelationship of these activities that leads to insights that would not be achieved or rather out of scope if the activities were left to operate individually. It has been held that, in addition to providing a holistic perspective to understanding organizational activities, the approach of configuration enhances insights into the equifinality of the various configurations (Schroeder, Bates & Junttila, 2002; Ethural, Kale, Krishna & Singh, 2005 and Hulland, 1999). Organizations deploy resources along the value chain in order to perform functional activities which can include sales and distribution, manufacturing among others. In this case, the issue of sales and distribution is affected by a number of factors.
To fully understand the functions of resources as well as capabilities in sales and distributions, there is a need to first identify them. There was a need to be careful with the number of resources to be listed to avoid the problem of not detecting configurational cluster structures in the empirical data. This resulted in developing three categories for the resources and capabilities, tangible, intangible and capabilities (Ray, Barney & Muhanna, 2004; Qamar, Hussain & Jamal, 2011 and Ketchen, Hult & Slater, 2007).
Research objective
The objectives of the research included investigating the effects of tangible, intangible resources and capabilities on performance in sales and distribution and to explore the bundles or configurations of these resources as well as capabilities.
Problem formulation
In the introduction section, the researchers have made it possible for readers to realize that they are engaging in this research in order to solve a given problem. From the literature, it is evident that resource-based review has been used traditionally to explain organizational competitive advantage. Nonetheless, this concept is tautological, provides very little normative guidance as well as does not predict explicitly which strategy can be used to deploy resources to gain effectiveness and organizational performance (Ketchen, Hult & Slater, 2007). The researchers have, thus, managed to show the gaps in the existing literature that need to be filled.
Literature review
I have to acknowledge that the currency of the literature used was too old considering the fact that the article was published in 2010. However, this did not derail the quality of the literature review. For instance, there was an article used that was published back in 1959. Nonetheless, the researchers tried to utilize some current articles and books published between the years 2000-2008. The strength of the literature reviews rests on the idea that the researchers not only brought forth the views and finding of previous scholars but they critically analyzed them and link them with the topic in the present study (Newbert, 2007; Mahoney, J. & Pandian, R. (1992).
Research methodology
It is worth noting that although the researchers did not devote a section to explain the overall research design, it can be established that the study adopted a quantitative research approach. This can be exemplified by the researchers’ option to use an online survey to collect the desired data. The researchers conducted an online survey among 1,438 firms considered young in technology in Germany. They were selected randomly. These firms were members of the Chamber for Industry and Commerce which is a must for all firms to be members. This ensured that there were no biases in data collection. To be included in the sample size, firms were to be independently held and less than 12 years old.
To ensure data, validity and reliability were guaranteed, the researchers pretested the questionnaires on 20 individuals. Additionally, the researchers tested non-response bias by comparing answers of early and late respondents through discriminate analysis. The strength of the methodology section includes the data collection tool, data reliability and validity, ethical issues, among others (Acedo, Barroso & Galan, 2006; Wold, 1985; Black & Boal, 1994 and Barney, 1991a). However, the researchers failed to mention the reasons behind using an online survey or questionnaires (Holcomb, Holmes & Connelly, 2009; Hansen, Perry & Reese, 2004; Gruber, Heinemann, Brettel & Hungeling, 2010).
Data were analyzed using PLS structural equation modeling and cluster analysis. It is important to note that the researcher justified their reason to use this method in analyzing their data. For instance, they pointed out that it takes into account models which combine formative and reflective constructs.
The results indicated that those firms with a high level of resources attained high performance while those with low-level resources achieved relatively low performance. The major limitation of the study is with regard to the interpretation of the findings. It is important to note that few related studies have been carried out that could help in interpretation and the performance measures are only perceptual (Barney, 1991b; Crook, R. Ketchen, Combs & Todd, 2008; Wernetfelt, 1984 and Sanchez, 2004).
Conclusion
It is worth noting that the authors concluded the paper based on the findings of their research. For instance, they were able to link their findings and the research questions and objectives.
References
Acedo, F., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. (2006). The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 621-636.
Barney, J. (1991a). Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. (1991b). Special theory forum the resource-based model of the firm: Origins, implications and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97-98.
Black, J. A., & Boal, K. (1994). Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 131-148. Web.
Crook, R., Ketchen, D., Combs, J., & Todd, S. (2008). Strategic resources and performance: A Meta analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1141-1154.
Ethural, S., Kale, P., Krishna, M., & Singh, J. (2005). Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry, Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 25-45.
Gruber, M., Heinemann, F., Brettel, M., & Hungeling, S. (2010). Configurations of Resources and Capabilities and their Performance Implications: An Exploratory Study of Technology Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1337-1356.
Hansen, M., Perry, L., & Reese, S. (2004). A Bayesian operationalisation of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1279-1295.
Holcomb, T., Holmes, M., & Connelly, B. (2009). Making the most of what you have: Management ability as a source of resource value creation. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 457-485.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204.
Ketchen, D., Hult, T., & Slater, S. (2007). Research notes and commentaries towards greater understanding of market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 961-964.
Mahoney, J., & Pandian, R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-380.
Newbert, S. (2007). Empirical research on resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121-146.
Olson, E., Craven, D., & Slater, F. (2001). Competitiveness and sales management: A marriage of strategies. Business Horizons, 44, 25-30.
Qamar, A., Hussain, A., & Jamal, F. (2011). Theoretical underpinnings behind resource based view: A marketing perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3), 1324-1328.
Ray, G., Barney, J., & Muhanna, W. (2004). Capabilities, business process and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-27.
Sanchez, R. (2004). Understanding competence-based management: I identifying and managing five modes of competence. Journal of Business Research, 57, 518-532.
Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A., & Junttila, M. A. (2002). A resourced-based view of manufacturing strategy and the relationship to manufacturing performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(2), 105-117.
Wernetfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.
Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, 6, 581-591.