There are two different interpretations of a resource based view. One is a value creation theory (Peteraf & Barney, 2003); the other one is a competitive advantage theory (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991, Peteraf, 1993). Those two were not the first attempts to conduct the research in the mentioned field. Coase in 1937, Selznick in 1957, Penrose in 1959, Stigler in 1961, Chandler in 1962 and 1977, and Williamson in 1975 were at the origins of the resource based view. They lay particular emphasis upon the significance of resources and their influence on the performance of firms (Conner, 1991; Rumelt, 1984; Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Rugman and Verbeke, 2002).
According to the RBV theory, value creation is predetermined by the capabilities of the firm and its own range of resources. Formation of alliances, transfer of capabilities, strategic decision making, product development and transfer of capabilities are only a few instances of such value creation processes (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Owing to the availability of virtual markets, absolutely new value creation sources originate nowadays. This process implies exploitation of new complementarities and relational capabilities along with other capabilities and resources of a firm.
A dominant source of value creation is innovation as consistent with the theory of Schumpeter (1934, 1939), who puts a priority on technological progress. According to his theory, the basis of new products and methods of production is an innovational combination of existing resources and services. This process results in transforming certain markets or even industries, and finally economic development taken as a whole. Thus, Schumpeter regards a firm as a combination of capabilities and resources in terms of the RBV view. Besides, marshalling and unique combinations of special and complimentary capabilities and resources are the factors of value creation (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991; Peteraf,1993; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). Numerous resource based view sources are focused on the problems sustainability of competitive performance and value appropriation (Barney, 1991).
Technology Acceptance Model
According to numerous research and studies, technology acceptance factors are considered to be measures of the customers’ readiness to make purchases on the Internet. The customers are willing to consume online in case they know which website is reliable and easy to use. So, a website is a kind of certain information technology. TAM or a Technology Acceptance Model was proposed by Davis (1989) and then cited in various research works related to the problem of technology acceptance (Lee, Kozar & Larsen, 2003). This model is used to predict and explain the acceptance of information technologies and information systems.
Davis defines PU or perceived usefulness as an extent to which people believe that the effectiveness of their work depends upon using a certain system (1989). According to the Technology Acceptance Model, there is another factor of determining the usage of certain systems, which is the perceived ease of use or PEOU. It is an extent to which people believe that it is effortless to use a certain system.
Some David’s (1985) predecessors emphasized the significance of PU and PEOU in case one has to predict how a person will behave in a certain situation. PU is a reliable factor of self-prediction in the decision model choice (Schultz & Slevin, 1975). Meta-analysis on adoption of innovations conducted by Klein and Tornatzky in 1982 added support to the theory of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Their study of adoption, value creation and innovation characteristics proved that the factor of complexity of an innovation is among the most important ones while establishing relationships among various innovation types. The theory of predicting people’s behavior by means of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness was also supported by Bardura (1982) and Swanson (1982). In 1989, Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw also emphasized a direct effect of both mentioned factors on the behavioral intentions.
The definition of the concept of internationalization as an outwardly directed movement in the international operations performed by an individual firm or a larger grouping was given by Johanson and Weidersheim-Paul (1975) and later by Piercy (1981). There is another approach endorsed by Bilkey (1978), Rothchild (1983), Cavusgil (1984), Welch and Loustarinen (1988), according to which internationalization is a process of intensification of involvement into operations at the international level. Internationalization was also studied in three dimensions including the foreign entry speed, the principle of choosing a foreign market and foreign entry form selection (Lindquist, 1991). Tyebjee (1994) concludes that export intensity is a traditional factor of small firms’ internationalization. The essence of internationalization in small companies is seen differently by Boter and Holmquist (1996). They conclude that it is a combination of the industry concept and studies on the individual and company levels. According to Wright and Ricks (1994), in broad terms, internationalization is an activity of a firm that goes over the national borders. It was also defined as the pattern of behavior made via accumulating evidence at certain time (Jones and Coviello, 2005).
The concept of internationalization is ambiguous; therefore, a number of international business theories provided different definitions and explanations at different times. The network theory of Axelsson and Easton in 1992, the theory of eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1988), the stage theory of Uppsala school explained by Johanson and Vahlne in 1977, the Hymer monopolistic advantage theory (1976), the internationalization theory of Buckley and Casson (1976), as well as Knickerbrocker’s oligopolistic theory (1973), Vernon’ s product cycle theory (1966) and many others considered the problem of internationalization from different perspectives.
The common assumption of the existing theories is that the concept of internationalization mostly relates to mature companies which had been formed long before they go global. From the perspective of McDougall et al (1994), those theories consider international business not on the basis of enterprises of small and medium size or the analysis of entrepreneurs, but with the focus on the analysis of large well-established companies.
Researchers have eliminated three dominant internationalization patterns of small and medium companies. The first is the pattern of gradual internationalization (Uppsala school model). The second is radical internationalization pattern suggested on the basis of global and international venture research. The third is radical late internationalization pattern on the basis of the born-again firms that work on the global level.
The Uppsala model provides a definition of gradual internationalization in the SME and MNE contexts. It emphasizes the importance of knowledge the company acquires about foreign markets. After that the company’s commitment towards those international markets is increased; thus, internationalization is a learning process which is incremental and self-reinforced (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 1990).
Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul in 1975 described the so called establishment chain which served as a basis for the above mentioned Uppsala model. It implies progressive development of companies with not regular export activities, subsidiary of sales, manufacturing and production, as well as export activities done by independent agents. According to Bell et al. (2003), empirical evidence proves that gradual internationalization is possible for numerous firms, especially if it goes about large economies.
Knight and Cavusgil (2004) leave gradual internationalization in serious doubt from both empirical and conceptual points of view. They ground their assumptions on the present-day phenomenon of revolutionary internationalization and global research. A born global firm can be defined as an organization aimed at seeking competitive advantages in business via selling the outputs in foreign countries and using resources (Oviatt and McDougall, 1994). Weerawardena et al. (2007) relate the source of competitive performance to the knowledge base. The world is perceived as a single market by knowledge consumptive small firms which internationalize their activity from the start. Distance is not a hindrance for the global firms which may work on the foreign and domestic markets simultaneously from the start (Bell et al., 2003). Moen and Servais (2002) concluded that born global internationalization pattern is of non-incremental, committed and radical nature.
|Avoiding the Cold and Flu Seasons||Convenience of Technology vs. Human Input|