Both supply chain management (SCM) and marketing in general have been moving from models and purposes narrowly focused on goods to more general models and purposes associated with partnerships, value networks, service provision, and value creation. Some of this movement has been captured in what has become known as service-dominant (S-D) logic. This article applies S-D logic to thinking about SCM in terms of service provision, in which goods are seen as service distribution or provisioning mechanisms, explores and elaborates on the concept of a value network, and develops a model of the firm as an essential service provisioning agent in a complex and adaptive value network. Research and managerial opportunities are also explored.

No abstract

In recent years, resource-based theory has emerged as one of the most promising theoretical frameworks in the field of strategic management. Unfortunately, past articulations of the theory are limited by their inability to incorporate effectively organizational learning, a key organizational capability thought to contribute to competitive advantage. This paper presents a model designed to incorporate organizational learning into the resource-based view and demonstrates the need for such a model through a number of case examples. Our fundamental argument is that organizational learning is a strategic capability and that resource-based theory must be able to incorporate organizational learning if it is to explain adequately the process of achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational learningWith the emergence of the global economy and the accelerating dynamics of the marketplace, firms everywhere have realized the need to improve constantly their products and processes in order to create and retain competitive advantage (cf. Flood and Olian, 1996). The current interest in organizational learning (OL) among management scholars and practitioners reflects this new competitive landscape.Nevis, DiBella and Gould (1995) have defined organizational learning as "the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience" (Nevis et al., 1995, p. 73). This definition is similar to those advanced by Argyris and Schon (1978), Dodgson (1993), Senge (1990) and Shrivastava and Grant (1985). According to Dodgson, "Learning is a dynamic concept, and its use in theory emphasizes the continually changing nature of organizations" (Dodgson, 1993, p. 376).Within this broad conceptualization, theorists have recognized different types, or levels, of learning. For example, Argyris and Schon (1978) have emphasized the need for double-loop learning -learning required to make fundamental changes in basic assumptions about the competitive environment -in addition to single-loop learning, which relates to improvements in existing organizational processes. Similarly, Senge (1990) contrasts "generative" with "adaptive" learning. Both levels of learning are necessary to the pursuit of competitive advantage, as after periods of significant discontinuous change,

No abstract

No abstract