/32-30_files/32-3000001im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Lesson 30

ASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL FORMATION AND

PERFORMANCE OF A UNIVERSITY

Introduction

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm grew out of frustration with the structure-conduct-performance

paradigm of the industrial organization (IO) view of the firm and the early RBV theorists found the IO view

that a firm's success was wholly determined by its external environment to be unrealistically limited and

turned to the seminal work of Penrose (1959) for motivation (Russo and Fouts, 1997). The biggest

contribution of Penrose (1959) is to provide base for understanding the causal links among resources,

capabilities and competitive advantage of a company, Penrose provides three key arguments concerning these

linkages (Kor and Mahoney, 2004). First of all Penrose (1959) asserts that firms cannot create economic value

for themselves merely by possessing resources, rather it's the effective and innovative management of these

resources that creates economic value for the firm. Secondly, Penrose highlights managers or human capital as

the main causal link in the conversion of firm's resources into firm capabilities and new product development.

Thirdly, through the use of the drivers of the rate and direction of firm growth, Penrose provides an

explanation of the link between resource-based view of the firm and its performance. Fourth key contribution

of Penrose is the stress on the importance of continuous maintenance of firm's existing capabilities in

protecting its competitive advantage from getting eroded. Penrose argues that if a firm keeps on investing in

renewing its capabilities through new resource combinations, then the firm's competitive advantage can be

sustained.

This paper attempts to apply the RBV of the firm to university settings and looks at the Intellectual Capital (IC)

formation of a university as the basis for its performance. The paper deals with the issues of IC formation, its

measurement, definition of a university's performance, its measurement and the association between the two.

This paper is divided into five sections. The first section provides an overview of the various RBV theories

along with a detailed discussion on the notions of strategy, resources, capabilities, competencies and creation of

competitive advantage of a firm with special emphasis on the role of human capital in sustaining this

competitive advantage. The second section briefly describes the evolution of RBV concepts over the years

while the third section discusses RBV application in the Education industry. Section four of the paper defines

university performance, its measurement and, performance of the three University of Management &

Technology (UMT) schools in the light of RBV. The fifth section highlights the limitations of the current study

along with some of the future research implications for the human capital-RBV link.

SECTION ONE

Resources & Capabilities

The RBV of a firm can be understood as a tradition emphasizing the company's internal competencies and

capabilities as the fundamental building blocks of strategy. Central to this theme is the idea that firms' posses

heterogeneous resources and capabilities, which account for difference in performance (Juga, 1999). But before

understanding the role of resources and capabilities in the creation of competitive advantage for the firms, it

will be worthwhile to differentiate between these two closely linked and subtly different constructs.

A number of definitions and classifications schemes of resources have been suggested (Hooley, Broderick and

Moller, 1998; Capron and Hulland, 1999) and following are some examples of these definitions:

Wernerfelt (1984): Anything that can be thought of as a strength or weakness of a firm.

Amit and Schoemaker (1993): Stocks of available factors that are owned or controlled by the firm.

Grant (1991): As inputs to the production process.

Barney (1991): As a bundle of assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, information and

knowledge.

Day (1994): Assets are the resource endowments the business has accumulated e.g. investments in plant, brand

equity while capabilities are the glue that binds these assets together and enables them to be successfully

deployed to the advantage of the firm. Capabilities are complex bundles of skills and collective learning,

exercised through organizational processes that ensure superior coordination of functional activities.

Teece et al. (1992): Defines capabilities as the abilities of an enterprise to organize, manage, coordinate or

undertake specific sets of activities.

/32-30_files/32-3000002im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Selznick (1957): Defines the notion of core or distinctive competencies as what a firm does particularly well in

relation to its competitors.

Wang and Lo (2004): Core competencies are the skills that enable a firm to deliver a fundamental customer

benefit by enabling the firm to establish, enhance, upgrade and utilize proprietary access to those resources that

lead to sustainable competitive advantage.

Prahalad and Hamel (1990): Core competencies are those competencies that make a disproportionate

contribution to ultimate customer value and provide a basis for entering new markets.

Teece et al. (1992): Also talk of "dynamic capabilities" referring to the capacity of a company to renew,

augment and adapt its core competence over time.

Grant (1991) suggests a key difference between resources and capabilities; on their own resources like capital

equipment, skills of individual employees, patents, brand names, finance and so on are not productive and it is

the firm's organizational capabilities its abilities to assemble, integrate and manage these bundle of resources

which become crucial in understanding how competitive advantage is conferred upon firms (Russo and Fouts,

1997). According to Grant (1991) productivity requires coordination and cooperation among these resource or

asset teams and a capability is the capacity for a team of resources to perform some task or productive activity

and, "while resources are the source of a firms' capabilities, capabilities are the main source of its competitive

advantage". Recent researchers have strengthened this view by emphasizing firm capabilities' "as more

intangible and inimitable resources, which stem from the integration of resources that are more likely to

produce a competitive advantage, because such capabilities are often rare and socially complex" (Cui and Lui,

2005). According to other researchers, "the firm's capabilities constitute what it can do as a result of bundle of

resources working together...to effectively coordinate its complex human and non human resources in order

to achieve corporate performance" (Chan, 2005), these capabilities cannot be given monetary value and are so

deeply embedded in the organizational routines and practices that they cannot be traded or imitated easily

(Ozsomer and Genctiirk, 2002). Other researchers make the distinction between assets and capabilities where

they define capability or competence as `the know-how' needed to build assets and sometimes refer to it as

`dynamic capability' (Markides and Williamson, 1996). Since competitors cannot simply buy this `know-how'

(created over time in a path dependent process that makes it inextricably interwoven into the firm) without

acquiring the entire firm, it becomes theoretically impossible for the competitors to imitate completely (Pettus,

2001).

Classification of Competencies

According to Day (1994), functional competencies of a company are classified as outside-in, inside-out and

spanning capabilities (Hooley, Broderick and Moller, 1998).

Outside-in competencies are those skills and abilities which enable a company to understand its environment

and customers and create close links between the `outside' (environment) and `inside' (resources endowments)

of the company. These competencies create `market sensing' skills or the abilities of the company to assess and

foresee changes occurring in its markets.

Inside-out competencies are the internal capabilities of the firm and include;

1. Human resources and their management

2. Financial management

3. Cost controlling skills

4. Technological skills

5. Logistics management

6. Manufacturing process management

On similar lines Grant (1991) classifies resources into the following six categories:

1. Financial resources

2. Physical resources

3. Human resources

4. Technological resources

5. Reputation

6. Organizational resources

/32-30_files/32-3000003im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Spanning or integrating competencies bring together the inside-out and outside-in competencies to ensure

delivery of products and services to the customers.

Strategy and RBV

Strategy is defined as, "the match an organization makes between its internal resources and skills...and the

opportunities and risks created by its external environment" (Grant, 2001). In recent times RBV has become

one of the most influential frameworks in the strategic management literature (Lavie, 2006; Dahan, 2005) and

the fundamental question in this field is how firms achieve and sustain competitive advantage (Juga, 1999). The

main theme of the resource-based theorists suggests that a sustainable firm strategy (and performance) is

strongly embedded in its resources and capabilities (Hooley, Broderick and Moller, 1998) and that these

diverse, hard to copy resources and capabilities provide the basis of strategic advantage and superior firm

performance (Lado, Boyd, Wright and Kroll, 2006). The resource-based literature strongly places a firm's

unique bundle of resources as the major antecedent of its strategy and performance (Chan, 2005).

But during 1980s, due to Michael porter's influence, the major developments in strategic area focused on the

link between strategy and external environment of a company and the link between strategy and internal firm

resources and skills suffered comparative neglect (Grant, 1991). It was towards the later half of 1980s that

increased interest in firm specific variables became apparent (Fahy, 2000; Fahy and Hooley, 2002) which then

resulted in positing a firm's resources as the foundation for firm strategy and Grant (1991) suggest the

following 5 step model to capture the importance of resources and capabilities in the formulation of a

company's strategy:

1. identification and classification of firm's resources

2. identification of a firm's capabilities and identification of resources inputs to each capability

3. appraising the rent generating potential of resources and capabilities in terms of their potential for

creating sustainable competitive advantage

4. selecting a strategy which best fits the firm's resources and capabilities relative to external

opportunities and

5. identification of resource gaps and investing to replenish and upgrade firm's resource base

RBV & its link with Competitive Advantage

RBV is not a brand new concept and one might suggest that it is mere common sense (O'Riordan, 2006). But

an awareness of how RBV can be applied to create competitive advantage in the companies has gained

popularity in recent times and key writers on the subject speak of VRIO (Value, Rarity, Imitability and

Organization) framework which started gaining strength from researchers like Barney, grant and Lado.

According to Barney (1991) a resource will create sustained competitive advantage if it is inimitable, valuable,

rare and no substitutable (Lado et al., 2006; Cui and Lui, 2005; Carter and Ruefli, 2006). Grant (1991) points

towards four characteristics of resources and capabilities that determine the sustainability of the competitive

advantage of a firm. These characteristics include:

1. Durability: Firm capabilities have the potential to be more durable than the underlying resources. A

durable resource or capability would be capable of being maintained over a long period of time

(Carter and Ruefli, 2006) and would therefore be critical in creating and sustaining the competitive

advantage of a firm.

2. Transparency: If a firm wishes to imitate the strategy of a rival firm, it must first establish the

capabilities which underlie the rival's competitive advantage, and then it must determine what

resources are required to replicate these capabilities, this transparency of the competitive advantage

of a firm would be less obvious in cases of multiple competencies and capabilities interacting to

create competitive advantage.

3. Transferability: Since most resources and capabilities are not freely transferable among firms,

therefore the rivals find it difficult to acquire exactly the same resources and capabilities needed to

replicate the competitive advantage of an incumbent firm. This imperfection in transferability of

resources and capabilities help protect the competitive advantage acquired by a firm over a period of

time.

4. Replicability: When the capabilities are less easy to replicate then the resulting competitive

advantage would be more difficult to imitate.

These above mentioned characteristics of resources and capabilities are captured by Barney (1991) as value,

rarity, imperfect Imitability and imperfect substitutability (Ray et al., 2005; O'Riordan, 2006).

/32-30_files/32-3000004im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

A key concept in explaining the sustainability of competitive advantage through the RBV is the `isolating

mechanism' or resource-position barriers (Lavie, 2006; Poppo and Weigelt, 2000) which are in essence the

strategies developed by the firms to reduce other firms' abilities to compete directly with them and the firms

discourage, delay, or thwart other firms' attempts to compete by erecting isolating mechanisms such as

favorable corporate reputations that are unlikely to be imitated or substituted (Carter and Ruefli, 2006). Indeed,

imitability is perhaps the most important predictor of organizational performance as a firm can obtain unusual

returns only when other firms are unable to imitate its resources and capabilities, otherwise these resources and

capabilities would be less rare or valuable, and substitutability would become irrelevant (Miller and Shamsie,

1996).

Some researchers strongly connect firm capabilities with its strategy and Stalk et al. (1992) define a capability,

"as a set of business processes strategically understood; hence, the company's competitive success depends on

transforming a company's key processes into strategic capabilities that consistently provide superior value to

the customer" (Juga, 1999). It is interesting to note that capabilities and competencies enables the activities in a

business process to be carried out which in turn creates the `isolating mechanisms' ensuring that the resulting

competitive advantage is sustainable over time and does not get eroded as it is based on capabilities which are

valuable, hard to copy, relatively rare and difficult to transfer and adopt. Research suggests that resources that

are valuable, but can be imitated, can only serve as the basis for a short-term competitive advantage but for this

advantage to be sustainable over time, the resources must also be inimitable and no substitutable (Sarason and

Tegarden, 2003).

The following analogy will further clarify some concepts of RBV:

"A firm's tangible resources are analogous to the vast number of genes (in a human cell). The business and

process backbones within the firm are like the helix...they support strategic assets through decisions,

organizational policies, procedures, and practices to create products and services. Capabilities, competencies

and routines are knowledge assets and are analogous to the gene's hydrogen bonds. They hold the tangible

resource genes together and are crucial in creating strategic assets. Akin to cells protecting their genomes

through cellular structures and processes, firms protect their assets through isolating mechanisms such as

history and causal ambiguity. The strategic assets are equivalent to the chromosomes. Strategic assets are as

unique to each firm as a genetic blueprint for reproduction is to each person" (Jugdev, 2004).

Role of Human Capital in the creation of Competitive Advantage

According to Penrose (1959), managers' experience with their firm resources produces firm-specific knowledge

about the productive opportunities that are unique for that firm (Kor and Mahoney, 2004). This experience

based knowledge is crucial as it is proprietary and cannot be transferred to new managers quickly, and also

cannot be purchased readily from the market. She also notes that firm-specific shared experience in the top

management team produces tacit knowledge and that this collective knowledge at top ranks strongly influences

managers' abilities to function as a team and serves as a competitive advantage (since this collective knowledge

serves as an isolating mechanism as compared to those firms who do not possess this brand of knowledge) for

the company.

The relevance of top management team (TMT) in the field of pioneering - the capacity of the firm to develop

new products ahead of rivals has been proved empirically and it is shown that TMT represents one particular

human capital resource that potentially differentiates between pioneering and non-pioneering firms (Flood,

Fong, Smith, O'Regan, Moore and Morley, 1997).

Strategic human resource management (SHRM) is a means of gaining competitive advantage through one of a

company's most important asset: its people (Richard, 2000), the other sources of competitive advantage like

technological and physical resources are comparatively easier to emulate and transfer. Therefore, the crucial

differentiating factor between companies can be how human resources are developed and nurtured in a

particular organization. The notion of human capital is based on the theme that people have skills, experience,

and knowledge all hard to copy and imitate that provide superior performance and competitive advantage

to that company. If the human capital creates value, remains hard to imitate and is rare, then it certainly

contributes as the main source of competitive advantage and superior firm performance (Saa-Perez and Garcia-

Falcon, 2002; Lee, Phan and Chan, 2005). Researchers have pointed out that women and racio-ethnic

minorities bring diverse (and hard to copy) insights and cultural sensitivities, which in turn creates competitive

advantage for companies pursuing different and new markets (Cox, 1994).

/32-30_files/32-3000005im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Human capital has long been argued as a critical resource in most companies and recent research suggests that

human capital attributes like education, experience and skills and, particularly the attributes of TMT affect firm

performance and the empirical relationship between human capital and performance is documented by many

writers (Hitt et al., 2001).

SECTION TWO

Evolution of RBV

This section briefly describes evolution of the RBV concept over the years along with some lacunas identified

in the research.

The traditional view of RBV is based on the assumption that resources that create competitive advantage for

firms, must be owned and controlled by the firms. However, in recent years, evidence suggests that resources

of alliance partners transferred through direct inter firm interactions have a considerable impact on firm

performance. The fundamental assumption of the RBV, according to which firms must own or at least fully

control the competitive advantage conferring resources, turns out to be incorrect (Lavie, 2006).

Traditionally, RBV was developed to understand the conditions under which firms gain and sustain a

competitive advantage, more recent researcher have however, shown RBV to be also applicable at the firm's

process-level to be effective in creating advantage for the firms and many studies in the IT industry have

confirmed this view (Ray, Muhanna and Barney, 2005).

The RBV has also been applied to understand why family firms are in better position than non-family firms to

understand the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. Research shows that organizational culture, in case of

family firms, becomes an important strategic resource and helps firms gain a better and deeper understanding

of the entrepreneurial issues (Zahra, Hayton and Salvato, 2004).

The literature points out one lacuna in the RBV, it is said that RBV is essentially a static theory as it

concentrates on identifying resources at one point in time. However, a recent extension of RBV, the dynamic

capabilities view (DCV) focuses on the capacity an organization facing a rapidly changing environment has to

create new resources. Current strategic management literature incorporates the DCV perspective in showing

that RBV could be extended to apply to corporate-level strategy in addition to its traditional application at the

SBU level (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2003).

Lado et al. points out that critics view RBV logic as paradoxical, and "the ability to measure a resource means

that this resource will be less likely to be a source of sustained competitive advantage" (Lado et al., 2006).

Another paradox highlighted by them is that if the basic ambit of RBV that there cannot be `rules for riches' is

to believed, then how it (RBV) can be used to generate managerial prescriptions to achieve competitive

advantage? Similarly, causal ambiguity the relative difficulty of understanding causal links between

organizational resources and performance also implicates that managers are limited in their ability to

understand the sources of sustained competitive advantage. But Lado et al. (2006) exonerate the RBV and

declare that, "taking the view that paradox is embedded in scientific epistemology, we have argued that

researchers can work within and through the RBV paradoxes to advance understanding, rather than insist on

theoretical purity via Popperian falsification........RBV paradoxes might reflect scientific anomalies that should

be tolerated, as long as this theoretical perspective continues to produce interesting insights".

SECTION THREE

RBV, Firm Performance and its application in the Education Imparting Institutions

Empirical studies of firm performance using the RBV have found differences not only between firms in the

same industry but also within the narrower confines of groups within the industries, suggesting that the effects

of individual, firm-specific resources on performance are significant (Wade and Hulland, 2004).

According to resource-based view of the firm, a firm's competitive strategies and performance depend

significantly on its organizational resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991). Recent researchers are

now extending the traditional RBV towards a natural-resource-based view of firms (NRVF) to develop firm-

specific competitive advantage by tactfully managing firm's relationship with natural environment and it is

theorized that due to increasingly stringent constraints imposed by the natural environment, the firm's ability to

deal with these constraints is valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable organizational capabilities, and

consequently lead to superior economic and social outcomes (Chan, 2005).

/32-30_files/32-3000006im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

The literature on diversification of businesses also relies on RBV to create competitive advantage and superior

performance for the diversified firms. The following paragraph highlights this issue:

"The fact that superior performance of diversification depends on opportunities to share strategic assets

has...important implication....The longevity of the competitive advantage (superior performance) will be

greater the less substitutable the asset and the more its replication suffers from impediments to

accumulation...or from Rumelt's `isolating mechanisms'" (Markides and Williamson, 1996; Knott, Bryce and

Posen, 2003).

Researchers have also highlighted link between RBV and performance in companies relying on Total Quality

Management (TQM) techniques to gain superiority than their competitors. The basic argument is that TQM

can contribute to the improvement of performance by encouraging the development of assets that are specific,

produce socially complex relationships, are embedded in the company history and culture and generate tacit

knowledge (Tena, Llusar and Puig, 2001).

RBV Applied to Education Imparting Institutions

Recent researchers have focused on applying RBV paradigm to knowledge-intensive industries like schools,

colleges and universities and they have noticed that, "for many organizations working within knowledge-

intensive industries, perhaps the most critical asset they posses never appears on the balance sheet, namely

intellectual capital (IC). This intangible asset represents organizational processes, human know-how, and

relationships that support or create wealth for the company...the RBV constitutes.... inside-out model where

strategic planning begins through the identification of internal resources that fit a matching external

environment" (Herremans and Issac, 2004).

While applying RBV to Britain's higher education institutions (HEIs), researchers at Middlesex University

Business School (UK) note, "When a university's resources are analyzed from an application-based RBV

perspective, it becomes clear that the people component of its resource base becomes fundamental...if a

university fails to invest in developing its staff, particularly in capacity building in research teams, it will not

succeed in developing knowledge to which it can then claim unique ownership through copyrights or patents"

(Lynch and Baines, 2004).

The importance of human resources as the main strategic asset of a university is further highlighted by focusing

on the following paradigms about `university culture' from various regions and countries of the world:

According to the Chinese perspective the ultimate objective of university education is the creation of the "new

person who surpasses former generations and pushes human civilization forward" by pursuing brilliant

traditions of university, people as its foundation, creation (educational) as main task, discipline, moral excellence,

tenacity of purpose, high aiming ideals, seeking genuineness or truth, distinction of right from wrong,

rectification of one's heart, cultivation of lofty personality, observation of standards or traditional spirit, virtue

of the teaching staff, creation in the study and research of teachers and students alike and by creating a school spirit

(Xu Jian Pei, 2002). Historically the Japanese universities have been undergraduate school oriented

organizations (Ogawa, 2002) but inspite of that the core elements of importance are considered as teachers, their

research orientation and their expertise. The core Nordic university values are considered to be inspired teaching,

unique talent and researcher's integrity (Sondergaard, 2001).

The preceding paragraphs clearly depict the following attributes required for the universities to sustain and

maintain their competitive advantage:

· Intellectual capital (human resources)

· Teaching staff (human resources)

· Research orientation of teachers (capability)

· Teachers' expertise/knowledge (capability)

· Unique talent of teachers (capability)

What follows from the above discussion is that it's the human assets and their capabilities and competencies

which are recognized as the main source of competitive advantage for universities across the globe. Since

competitive advantage conferred by assets and capabilities leads to performance, therefore, this paper suggests

the following broad proposition:

"The performance of a university will be positively associated with its intellectual capital or human resources (teaching staff) and

their capabilities".

100

/32-30_files/32-3000007im.jpg" width="732" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

SECTION FOUR

Application of RBV at the Three Schools of University of Management and Technology (UMT):

Intellectual Capital and University Performance Data Analysis

UMT, a Lahore based university founded as Institute of Leadership and Management (ILM) in 1990, has three

schools under its jurisdiction and following is a brief description of these schools.

1. School of Business & Economics (SBE), offers MBA Professional and Executive, BBA, B.Com,

Masters' in Banking & Finance (MSBF), Bachelors' in IT (BBIT) and PhD in Management

2. School of Science & Technology (SST), offers Masters' in Computer Sciences (MCS), Bachelors' in

Computer Sciences (BCS), and MS.

3. School of Social Sciences & Humanities (SSSH), offers Masters' in Education and English

Language Teaching along with a PhD program

A total of about 2000 students are enrolled in these three schools (as per Fall 2006) with the following breakup

as presented in Table 1:

Table 1

School Name

Students Enrolled as a Percent of Total Students

SBE

55%

SST

37%

SSSH

These three schools have their own full-time faculty and other organizational resources. Since this paper is only

considering the impact of human resources (intellectual capital) on the performance of the respective school,

the measuring instrument as shown in Table 2, attempts only to measure the capabilities and competencies of

senior full-time faculty of the school.

Table 2

Intellectual Capital Measuring Instrument

1. School:

2. With UMT since:

3. Designation:

4. Gender:

5. Number of years experience as university teacher:

6. Number of years experience in industry:

7. Number of consulting projects completed as consultant:

8. Highest level of education attained:

9. University where enrolled as a student:

10. Number of research papers written:

11. Number of research papers accepted for publication:

12. Journals where these papers are accepted or published:

13. Number of papers presented in conferences/seminars:

14. Where were these conferences/seminars held:

15. Did you sponsor yourself or did your organization sponsor you for conferences:

16. Number of teaching cases written:

17. Where were these cases published:

18. Number of projects conducted as corporate trainer:

19. Where were these projects conducted:

20. Number of MS/MPhil/Doctoral thesis/dissertations supervised:

The measuring instrument is now discussed in some detail.

The Intellectual Capital Measuring Instrument (ICMI) is developed as a result of literature review and

discussions with senior faculty members of all the three schools of UMT. A total of 20 items are used to

measure the Intellectual Capital (IC), the single independent variable of this study for each school of UMT.

101

/32-30_files/32-3000008im.jpg" width="724" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

The sample for this study included all senior faculty members of the schools. Senior faculty members, for the

purpose of this study, are defined as those with a designation of Assistant Professor or above and who are with

UMT for at least one year.

During literature review and discussions with the senior faculty members of the UMT schools, the following

themes emerged around which the IC of the schools is measured:

1. Teaching Experience: defined in terms of total number of years' experience as university

teacher (item#5).

2. Industrial Experience: the discussion with the senior faculty revealed that an important

indicator of the effectiveness of a university teacher is considered to be his exposure to

industry. This is because teachers having direct exposure to industry (not as consultants but

as full time employees) equips them better to relate students' academic questions/queries

with real life situations and hence they can prepare students more effectively to take up the

challenges of future than those teachers who are not exposed to industry (item#6).

3. Consulting/Training Experience: consulting, training and teaching are interrelated processes

and a multiple experience of consulting and training is considered an important attribute of

the teaching skills of the faculty (item#7,18&19).

4. Research Orientation: the most crucial aspect of university teaching is the creation of unique

knowledge and that largely stems from the research experience of the senior faculty

(item#10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17&20).

5. Educational Background: of the faculty member was also pointed out to be an important

indicator of a teacher's uniqueness and effectives for the university (item#8&9).

So far human resources (intellectual capital) have been identified as a main source of generating competitive

advantage or performance of a university and teaching, industrial, consulting/training experience, research

orientation and educational background of the IC captures the unique capabilities and competencies which the

faculty has developed over the years.

Factor analysis (principal components) was used to assess the dimensionality of the scale items and as Table 3

shows, 61.8% of the total variance is accounted for by three components:

Table 3

Total Variance

Component#

% of Variance Explained

Cummulative %

32.09

18.83

50.92

10.35

61.28

The following scree plot (Figure 1) also points towards a three factor solution:

Figure 1

Scree Plot

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Component Number

Following is the component matrix showing extractation of 6 components.

102

/32-30_files/32-3000009im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Table 4

Component Matrix

Component

School Category

.229

-.674

.224

.018

-.339

.230

Faculty Designation

.647

.272

.204

.419

-.314

-.166

No. of years with UMT

-.143

.061

.785

.078

-.147

.224

Gender

.057

.024

-.692

.498

.107

.000

No.

Years

.464

.476

.444

.005

-.166

-.270

University Teacher

No. of years Experience

-.582

.495

.053

.338

.198

-.236

in Industry

No.

Consulting

-.560

.531

-.053

.023

.039

-.368

Projects Conducted

Highest

Level

.820

-.166

-.168

.260

-.243

-.109

Education

University enrolled in as

.284

-.244

-.548

-.349

.109

-.094

student

No. of Research Papers

.831

.296

.220

-.101

.178

-.159

Written

No. of Papers Accepted

.852

.212

.145

-.155

.205

-.269

for Publication

Journals where Published

.795

.063

.084

-.051

.261

-.060

No. of Papers presented

.857

.203

-.016

.014

.215

.008

in Seminars/Conferences

Where

the

Seminar/Conference was .767

.361

-.187

-.002

.191

.386

held?

Who Sponsored for

.674

.399

-.071

.096

-.016

.493

Seminars/Conferences?

No. of Cases Written

-.236

.707

-.146

.229

-.107

.244

Were

the

Cases

.068

.474

-.165

-.666

-.313

-.023

Published?

No.

Projects

conducted as Corporate -.353

.799

-.057

-.059

-.087

.021

Trainer

Where were the Trainings

-.187

.729

-.202

-.142

-.301

.180

conducted?

Thesis/Dissertation

-.509

.172

.380

-.067

.600

.275

Supervised

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

6 components extracted.

The above Table and the loading scores isolate three factors or dimensions of the measuring instrument:

1. Research Orientation

2. Corporate Training

3. Teaching Experience

This factor solution is consistent with the underlying themes (teaching experience, industry/consulting/training

exposure, research orientation and educational background) of the measuring instrument.

103

/32-30_files/32-3000010im.jpg" width="724" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Reliability

The questionnaire shown in Table 2 is an outcome of the five themes identified in the face-to-face discussions

with senior faculty members and the resulting questionnaire was pre tested with 3 deans of the three schools

before finalizing. Another important factor adding to the reliability of the questionnaire is the fact that the

responses to questions are not based on perceptions of the respondents instead they are actual and can be

verified from records.

Validity

Convergent validity: The outcome of the face-to-face discussions with senior faculty and the above mentioned

literature review present very similar themes/issues around which the human capital of a university is measured

(reference to be made in the literature review from where these five themes are coming from). Therefore it can

be said that the requirement for dissimilar methods is met to some extent.

Discriminant validity: This validity is tested following the method used by Kleinsorge and Koeing (1991).

Among the scale items, the highest correlations are .949 between number of research papers written and

number of research papers accepted, .611 between school category and number of years experience in industry

and, .605 between faculty designation and number of years experience as university teacher. These correlations

are no doubt high but the scales are quite different in content so it does not appear that the same issue is

measured again and again.

Data Analysis for the IC of the three schools of UMT

All the interviews were conducted by the writer himself either face-to-face or on telephone. A total of 35 senior

faculty members were interviewed from the three schools of UMT, following is a school-wise breakup of the

respondents surveyed:

SBE

51.4%

SST

34.3%

SSSH

14.3%

The IC scores for each school of UMT, based on the information gained from the measuring instrument, is

now calculated. Table 5 represents the summary of the results of cross tabulation analysis.

Table 5

Cross Tabulation Analysis (All figures as % of total, in decimal forms)

Measuring Item

SBE

SST

SSSH

10 years+ experience .371

.115

.029

as university teacher

7 years+ industry .315

.115

experience

10+

consulting .229

.029

projects conducted

Education (post-grad, .2

.286

.115

PhD or MPhil/MS)

Research

papers .287

.058

written

Papers accepted for .172

.172

.057

publication

Journals

where .172

.172

.058

accepted

(Pakistan+outside

Pakistan+both)

Papers presented in .257

.172

.086

conferences

Conference sponsored .114

.029

.057

(self and both self &

organization)

Cases written

.258

.029

Cases published

.086

104

/32-30_files/32-3000011im.jpg" width="724" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Corporate

training .314

conducted

Thesis/Dissertations

.143

.229

.057

supervised

Total IC Score

2.918

1.548

.517

Summation of the measuring items scores (as percent of total expressed in decimals) generates the IC score for

the school. According to the above analysis of IC scores, the three schools of UMT show the following

rankings:

SBE

2.918 (Rank 1)

SST

1.548 (Rank 2)

SSSH

.517 (Rank 3)

SBE has 1.88 and 5.6 times higher IC scores respectively as compared to SST and SSSH. SST has about 3 times

higher IC score than SSSH. Figure 2 depicts this comparison in graphical form.

Figure 2

IC Scores of the Three UMT

Schools

4000

Series1

2000

SBE

SST

SSSH

Schools

Since we now have the basis for IC measurement of each school of UMT, the next step in this study is to relate

the level of IC formation with the performance of the schools.

School Performance

The definition of university performance for this paper is derived from an interpretation of quality adopted

from the Baldrige 2004 Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (Table 3) modified for universities

(Carr, Hamilton and Meade, 2005).

Table 6

Strategic planning

Student, stakeholder and market focus

Knowledge management

Education, training and development of academic staff

Quality systems

Teaching, learning and assessment

Research and postgraduate study

Community service

Support process

Adapted from Baldrige National Quality Programme 2004

Based on the Baldrige Education Criteria for Excellence and a study conducted to evaluate the performance of

the University of Otago (Meade et al., 2005), the following performance indicators are used in assessing the

performance of each school of UMT:

1. Improved Teaching Effectiveness is captured through number of student enrollments per year

(student enrollment can be an indirect way of assessing students' feedback on the learning outcomes

105

/32-30_files/32-3000012im.jpg" width="724" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

and teaching effectiveness) and the funds generated through enrollments. Other indicators include

number of degree programs initiated and number of courses developed.

Teaching and Learning Grants are a representation of a university's ongoing commitment to

performance/quality improvements.

External Consulting Income measures the capacity of the university to contribute to the development

of the corporate sector.

Internal Research activities are measured through number of research papers/articles and teaching

cases produced by the school.

Number of students placed (through the placement department of UMT) in the industry would

indicate the coordination and impact a school makes on the corporate sector. This indicator is taken as

a proxy for `employability' criteria; one of the four criterions published by The Higher Education

Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the other three being access and participation, retention and

progression and research (Bratti, McKnight, Naylor and Smith, 2004).

Data Analysis

Based on the above criterion of a university performance, secondary data spanning the last 3 years (2002 to

2005) was collected from all the three schools of UMT, concerning the following indicators:

1. Student enrollment

2. Revenue generated through tuition fees

3. Number of degree programs initiated

4. Number of courses developed

5. Teaching/Learning grants issued to faculty

6. External consulting income

7. Number of research papers produced

8. Number of students placed in the industry

Table 7 summarizes the data collected.

Table 7

UMT Schools Performance Indicators (Year 2002 2005)

(All figures as % of total, in decimal forms)

Measuring Item

SBE

SST

SSSH

Student enrollment

.53

.38

.09

Tuition fee revenue

.65

.32

.03

Degree

programs .47

.23

initiated

Courses developed

.66

.21

.13

Teaching/learning

.72

.28

grants

External

consulting 1

income

Research

papers .53

.47

produced

Student placed in .72

.28

industry

Total Performance 5.28

2.24

0.48

Score

Summation of the measuring items scores (as percent of total expressed in decimals) generates the Performance

score for the school. According to the above analysis of Performance scores, the three schools of UMT show

the following rankings:

SBE

5.28 (Rank 1)

SST

2.24 (Rank 2)

SSSH

0.48 (Rank 3)

106

/32-30_files/32-3000013im.jpg" width="741" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

SBE has 2.35 and 11 times higher Performance Score respectively as compared to SST and SSSH. SST has

about 4.67 times higher Performance Score than SSSH. Figure 3 depicts this comparison in graphical form.

Figure 3

Performance Scores of the Three

UMT Schools

Series1

SBE

SST

SSSH

Schools

Discussion

A cursory comparison of figures 2 and 3 and the school rankings in terms of IC formation and school

performance clearly indicates that SBE with the best IC score (2.918) is also placed as the most performing

school and has the highest Performance Score (5.28). Similarly, SST is ranked 2 in both the IC score (1.548)

and Performance score (2.24) while SSSH has the lowest IC score (0.512) and is also the lowest performing

school with a Performance Score of only 0.48. One can, therefore, conclude that IC and performance of a

school move in the same direction and are positively related with each other so that a high IC formation will

yield high performance. It will be worth remembering here that the IC score is a reflection of the unique,

inimitable, non transferable and non substitutable capabilities and competencies of the senior faculty members

of each school. The school with more of these capabilities and competencies embedded in its faculty, SBE in

this study, has performed better over the years as compared to the two other schools.

The data collected from Table 2 measuring items (IC measuring items) was subjected to One Way ANOVA to

assess the differences across three school categories in terms of the other variables measured. Results are

shown in Table 8.

Table 8

ANOVA

Sum

Squares

Mean Square

Sig.

No. of years with Between Groups

3.727

1.863

1.405

.260

UMT

Within Groups

42.444

1.326

Total

46.171

No. of Years as Between Groups

5.077

2.538

.729

.490

University Teacher

Within Groups

111.494

3.484

Total

116.571

No.

years Between Groups

57.877

28.938

8.217

.001

Experience

in Within Groups

112.694

3.522

Industry

Total

170.571

No. of Consulting Between Groups

14.822

7.411

4.493

.019

Projects Conducted

Within Groups

52.778

1.649

Total

67.600

Highest Level of Between Groups

3.015

1.508

2.350

.112

Education

Within Groups

20.528

.641

Total

23.543

University enrolled in Between Groups

2.965

1.483

1.785

.184

107

/32-30_files/32-3000014im.jpg" width="741" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

as student

Within Groups

26.578

.831

Total

29.543

No. of Research

Between Groups

4.169

2.085

.900

.417

Papers Written

Within Groups

74.117

2.316

Total

78.286

No.

Papers

Between Groups

5.015

2.508

1.060

.358

Accepted

for

Within Groups

75.728

2.366

Publication

Total

80.743

Journals

where

Between Groups

.958

.479

.338

.716

Published

Within Groups

45.328

1.416

Total

46.286

No.

Papers

Between Groups

1.165

.583

.392

.679

presented

Within Groups

47.578

1.487

Seminars/Conference

Total

48.743

Where

the

Between Groups

1.994

.997

.580

.566

Seminar/Conference

Within Groups

54.978

1.718

was held?

Total

56.971

Who Sponsored for

Between Groups

.283

.142

.114

.892

Seminars/Conference

Within Groups

39.717

1.241

Total

40.000

No. of Cases Written

Between Groups

6.048

3.024

4.264

.023

Within Groups

22.694

.709

Total

28.743

Were

the

Cases

Between Groups

.243

.121

1.554

.227

Published?

Within Groups

2.500

.078

Total

2.743

No.

Projects

Between Groups

49.706

24.853

7.744

.002

conducted

Within Groups

102.694

3.209

Corporate Trainer

Total

152.400

Where were the

Between Groups

7.269

3.635

3.284

.050

Trainings conducted?

Within Groups

35.417

1.107

Total

42.686

Thesis/Dissertation

Between Groups

2.265

1.133

4.275

.023

Supervised

Within Groups

8.478

.265

Total

10.743

These results show that a statistically significant difference exists among the three UMT school categories on

· Number of years experience in industry F(2,32)= 8.217, p = .001

· Consulting projects conducted F(2,32)= 4.493, p = .019

· Cases written F(2,32)= 4.264, p = .023

· Projects conducted as corporate trainer F(2,32)= 7.744, p = .002 and

· Student dissertations/thesis supervised F(2,32)= 4.275, p = .027

The post hoc Tukey comparisons were conducted to determine the source of differences and the results are

shown in the following Tables 9 to 13.

108

/32-30_files/32-3000015im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Table 9: No. of years Experience in Industry

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = .05

School Category N

SSSH

.00

SST

1.75

SBE

3.56

Sig.

.138

.123

Table 10: No. of Consulting Projects Conducted

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = .05

School Category N

SSSH

.00

SST

.83

SBE

1.78

Sig.

.371

.283

Table 11: No. of Cases Written

Tukey HSD

Subset for

alpha =

.05

School Category

SSSH

.00

SST

.08

SBE

.89

Sig.

.083

Table 12: No. of Projects conducted as Corporate Trainer

Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = .05

School Category N

SSSH

.00

SST

.25

SBE

2.56

Sig.

.954

1.000

Table 13: Thesis/Dissertation Supervised

Tukey HSD

Subset for

alpha =

.05

School Category

SST

1.17

SSSH

1.60

SBE

1.72

Sig.

.075

109

/32-30_files/32-3000016im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8.852.

b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

The Tukey HSD Tests show that the

· Mean number of years experience in industry is 1.75 for SST and 3.56 for SBE

· Mean number of consulting projects conducted is 0.83 for SST and 1.78 for SBE

· Mean number of cases written is 0.08 for SST and 0.89 for SBE

· Mean number of projects conducted as corporate trainer is 0.25 for SST and 2.56 for SBE

· Mean number dissertations/thesis supervised is 1.17 for SST, 1.6 for SSSH and 1.72 for SBE

These post hoc Tukey HSD tests indicate that the three schools differ significantly in terms of industrial

experience, consulting and training experience, case writing and students' dissertations supervised (p value less

than .05).

SECTION FIVE

Limitations of the Study

This study does not test the relationship between IC formation and school performance on the basis of

regression analysis. The main impediment in this regard was the difference in the level of analysis; IC formation

was measured through summating the individualized responses from the senior faculty but in case of the

performance data, the responses were aggregates of the different performance criterion as mentioned earlier,

and therefore, direct statistical testing between the two was not possible using the SPSS version 12. The study

therefore is non conclusive when it comes to determining the causality of the association between IC and

school performance. But the study definitely provokes some food for thought for future research in this area.

Future Research Implications

Following are some of the implications of this study which need to be addressed from a futuristic research

point of view:

1. There is a need for developing reliable and valid instruments to measure IC formation and

Performance of a university.

2. The study needs to be replicated across other educational institutions, both public and private and

national and international, so that the link between human capital formation and educational

institutions' become more vivid and transparent.

3. Longitudinal studies exploring the link between human capital and performance would shed more light

on the causal relationship between these two variables.

References

Barney, J.B. (1991). Firms Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 99 120.

Bowman, Cliff; Ambrosini, Veronique. (2003). How the Resource-Based and the Dynamic Capability View of

the Firm Inform Corporate-Level Strategy, British Journal of Management, 14, 289 303.

Bratti, Massimiliano; McKnight, Abigail; Naylor, Robin; Smith, Jeremy. (2004). Higher Education Outcomes,

Graduate Employment and University Performance Indicators, Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 167, 475 496.

Capron, Laurence; Hulland, John. (1999). Redeployment of Brands, Sales Forces, and General Marketing

Management Expertise Following Horizontal Acquisitions: A Resource-Based View, Journal of Marketing, 63, 41

54.

Carr, Sarah; Hamilton, Emma; Meade, Phil. (2005). Is It Possible? Investigating the Influence of External

Quality Audit on University Performance, Quality in Higher Education, 11, 195 211.

Carter, Suzanne M; Ruefli, Timothy W. (2006). Intra-Industry Reputation Dynamics under A Resource-Based

Framework: Assessing the Durability Factor, Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 3 25.

Chan, Ricky Y.K. (2005). Does the Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm Apply in an Emerging

Economy? A Survey of Foreign Invested Enterprises in China, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 625 672.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice, San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.

Cui, Geng; Lui, Hon-Kwong. (2005). Order of Entry and Performance of multinational Corporations in an

Emerging Market: A Contingent Resource Perspective, Journal of International Marketing, 13, 28 56.

110

/32-30_files/32-3000017im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Dahan, Nicolas. (2005). Can There be a Resource-Based View of Politics? International Studies of Management and

Organizations, 35, 8 27.

Day, G. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations, Journal of Marketing, 58, 37 52.

Fahy, John. (2000). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Some Stumbling-Blocks on the Road to

Understanding Sustainable Competitive Advantage, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24/2/3/4, 94 104.

Fahy, John; Hooley, Graham. (2002). Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Electronic Business: Towards a

Contingency Perspective on the Resource-Based View, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 10, 241 253.

Flood, Patrick C; Fong, Cher-Min; Smith, Ken G; O'Regan, Philip; Moore, Sarah; Morley, Michael. (1997). Top

Management Teams and Pioneering: A Resource-Based View, The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 8:3, 291 - 306.

Grant, Robert M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy

Formulation, California Management Review, 33, 114 134.

Herremans, Irene M; Issac, Robert G. (2004). The Intellectual Capital Realization Process (ICRP): An

Application of the Resource-Based View of the Firm, Journal of Managerial Issues, XVI, 217 231.

Hitt, Michael A; Bierman, Leonard; Shimizu, Katshuiko; Kochhar, Rahul. (2001). Direct and Moderating

Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-Based

Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 13 28.

Hooley, Graham; Broderick, Amanda. (1998). Competitive Positioning and the Resource-Based View of the

Firm, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 97 115.

Juga, Jari. (1999). Generic Capabilities: Combining Positional and Resource-Based View for Strategic

Advantage, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7, 3 18.

Jugdev, Kam. (2004). Through the looking Glass: Examining Theory Development in Project Management

with the Resource-Based View Lens, Project Management Journal, 35, 15 26.

Kleinsorge, Hene K; Koeing, Harold F. (1991). The Silent Customers: Measuring Customer Satisfaction in

Nursing Homes, JHCM, 11, 2 13.

Knott, Anne Marie; Bryce, David J; Posen, Hart E. (2003). On the Strategic Accumulation of Intangible Assets,

Organization Science, 14, 192 207.

Kor, Yasemin Y; Mahoney, Joseph T. (2004). Edith Penrose's (1959) Contributions to the Resource-Based

View of Strategic Management, Journal of Management Studies, 41, 183 191.

Lado, Augustine A; Boyd, Nancy G; Wright, Peter; Kroll, Mark. (2006). Paradox and Theorizing within the

Resource-Based View, Academy of Management Review, 31, 115 131.

Lavie, Dovev. (2006). The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-

Based View, Academy of Management Review, 31, 638 658.

Lee, Soo Hoon; Phan, Phillip H; Chan, Elaine. (2005). The Impact of HR Configuration on Firm Performance

in Singapore: A Resource-Based Explanation, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1740 1758.

Lynch, Richard; Baines, Paul. (2004). Strategy Development in UK Higher Education: Towards Resource-

Based Competitive Advantages, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 171 187.

Markides, Constantinos C; Williamson, Peter J. (1996). Corporate Diversification and Organizational Structure:

A Resource-Based View, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 340 367.

Miller, Danny; Shamsie, Jamal. (1996). The Resource-Based View of the Firm in Two Environments: The

Hollywood Film Studios from 1936 to 1965, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 519 543.

Ogawa, Yoshikazr. (2002). Challenging the Traditional Organization of Japanese Universities, Higher Education,

43, 85 108.

O'Riordan, Chris. (2006). Using the VRIO Framework in Practicing Firms Taking the Resource-Based View

(RBV), Accountancy Ireland, 38, 42 43.

Ozsomer, Aysegul; Gencturk, Esra. (2001). A Resource-Based Model of Market Learning in the Subsidiary: The

Capabilities of Exploration and Exploitation, Journal of International Marketing, 11, 1 29.

Pettus, Michael L. (2001). The Resource-Based View as a Developmental Growth Process: Evidence from the

Deregulated Trucking Industry, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 878 896.

Poppo, Laura; Weigelt, Keith. (2000). A Test of the Resource-Based Model using Baseball Free Agents, Journal

of Economics and Management Strategy, 9, 585 - 614.

Ray, Gautam; Muhanna Waleed A; Barney, Jay B. (2005). Information Technology and the Performance of the

Customer Service Process: A Resource-Based Analysis, MIS Quarterly, 29, 625 652.

Richard, Orlando C. (2000). Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based

View, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164 177.

111

/32-30_files/32-3000018im.jpg" width="718" height="1039" useMap="#Map">

Human Resource Development (HRM-627)

Russo, Michael V; Fotus, Paul A. (1997). A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental

Performance and Profitability, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534 559.

Saa-Perez, Petra De; Garcia-Falcon, Juan Manuel. (2002). A Resource-Based View of Human Resource

Management and Organizational Capabilities Development, International Journal of Human Resource Management,

13, 123 140.

Sarason, Yolanda; Tegarden, Linda F. (2003). The Erosion of the Competitive Advantage of Strategic Planning:

A Configuration Theory and Resource Based View, Journal of Business and Management, 9, 1 20.

Sondergaard, Dorte Marie. (2001). Consensual and Disensual University Culture: Gender and Power in

Academia, NORA: Nordic Journal of Women's Studies, 9, 143.

Stalk, G; Evans, P; Shulman, L.E. (1992). Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate Strategy,

Harvard Business Review, 70, 57 69.

Teece, D.J; Pisano, G; Shuen, A. (1992). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Berkeley: University

of California.

Tena, Ana Belen Escrig; Llusar, Juan Carlos Bou; Puig, Vicente Roca. (2001). Measuring the Relationship

between Total Quality Management and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View, Total

Quality Management, 12, 932 938.

Wade, Michael; Hulland, John. (2004). Review: The Resource-Based View and Information Systems Research:

Review, Extension, and Suggestions for Future Research, MIS Quarterly, 28, 107 142.

Wang, Yonggui; Lo, Hing-Po. (2004). Customer-Focused Performance and its Key Resource-Based

Determinants: An Integrated Framework, CR, 14, 34 59.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). The Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171 180.

Xu Jian Pei. (2002). The Cultivation of University Culture in the New Century, Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 1.

Zahra, Shaker A; Hayton, James C; Salvato, Carlo. (2004). Entrepreneurship in Family vs. Non-Family Firms: A

Resource-Based Analysis of the Effects of Organizational Culture, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042-

2587, 363 381.

112