Journal of Operations Management 41 (2016) 107e109
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Operations Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jom
Forum
A current view of resource based theory in operations management: A
response to Bromiley and Rau
Michael A. Hitt a, *, Christina Matz Carnes b, Kai Xu c
a
Texas A&M University and Texas Christian University, USA
b
University of Nebraska at Lincoln, USA
c
The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 20 October 2015
Available online 18 December 2015
Accepted by Mikko Ketokivi
In their commentary, Bromiley and Rau (2016) criticized
resource-based theory (RBT) generally, and challenged the appro-
priateness of its application in operations management (OM). As an
alternative to RBT, they offered a new perspective, the practice-
based view (PBV), as “an approach compatible with using
imitable practices to explain the entire range of performance.”
Although the authors provide some valuable points, we believe that
there is “more to the story” that is important for OM scholars to
consider when examining potential theoretical frames that include
RBT. Specifically, we examine their perspective of OM and its pur-
pose relative to how we interpret the field based on OM scholars’
views, review the recent developments in RBT addressing many of
the critiques Bromiley and Rau presented, and explain the value of
resource orchestration (RO) for OM research, potentially in concert
with the PBV.
1. Breadth and depth of focus
Importantly, we believe the definition of OM presented in
Bromiley and Rau (2016) tends to be narrow, excluding some of
current foci in the OM field. Bromiley and Rau state that “We believe
operations management scholars want to explain which firms use
operations management practices and understand the influence of
those OM practices on operational performance.” Regarding the level
of study, Bromiley and Rau (2016) pointed out that the focus of OM
appears to be largely at the plant level and “operations management
scholars inherently study part of the firm.”
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mhitt@mays.tamu.edu (M.A. Hitt).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.004
0272-6963/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
However, based on recent reviews of OM research (Pilkington
and Meredith, 2009) and our examination of OM research using
RBT, we conclude that the research focus of OM is broader than
imitable OM practices at the plant level. For example, Pilkington
and Meredith (2009) suggested that the field of OM has begun to
emphasize more strategic and macro issues and the general topics
of OM listed on the Journal of Operations Management website
provide further support for this observation. Even though some of
the general topics are closely related to OM plant level practices,
more emerging topics, such as operations strategy and policy,
sustainable supply chain operations, and regulatory and environ-
mental issues in operations, draw top managers' attention at the
firm level and are incorporated into the firm's long-term strategies.
In addition, supply chain management and international and
comparative operations management require collaboration and
strategic planning along the supply chain and even affiliations
across the border. These points alone suggest that the OM field is
interested in a broader set of topics and foci than plant level
practices.
Identifying the research topics and levels studied in a field is
important for at least two reasons. First, it defines the boundary of
OM and facilitates our understanding of how it intersects with
other fields, two factors which are crucial for a healthy develop-
ment of a field over time. Second, it also has a strong influence on
the audience type and size to which the OM field is targeted. In
short, we believe that the potential audience for, and impact of, OM
research is much broader than implied by the arguments presented
by Bromiley and Rau.
As an example, Hitt et al. (2016) show why and how a more
accurate definition of the OM field helps us better understand the
application of RBT in OM research. Indeed, the OM research
examined by Hitt et al. (2016) contributed to four main streams of
research including supply chain management, operations strategy,
performance management, and product/service innovation. Using
this broader set of foci acknowledged by OM scholars (Pilkington
and Meredith, 2009; Taylor and Taylor, 2009), we found that RBT
has been adopted by OM scholars doing research in each of these
four research streams.
Take product/service innovation as an example. RBT has been
108 M.A. Hitt et al. / Journal of Operations Management 41 (2016) 107e109
useful to help explain how involving suppliers and customers adds
value to this non-practice (actually, developing innovation often
involves many actions and practices). In Hitt et al. (2016), 18 articles
published in 9 major OM journals and other management journals
publishing OM research (e.g., AMJ, MS SMJ) since 2007 used RBT to
help understand and explain the development of innovation. More
recently, Wowak et al. (2016) argue that resource orchestration
theory (an extension of RBT as explained in our original article in
this issue) helps firms effectively structure and bundle resources in
the new product development process. More importantly, resource
orchestration emphasizes the necessity of transcending firm
boundaries to obtain and manage suppliers’ resources in the new
product development process.
2. RBT critiques: old and new
Despite the gap in the focus between our review and that in
Bromiley and Rau's (2016) commentary, their critique of RBT raises
several valid and valuable concerns, including the issues sur-
rounding the dependent variable and the level of analysis. How-
ever, many of the criticisms expressed by Bromiley and Rau are
focused on a few original works, primarily Barney (1991), and not
the current state of RBT research. In fact, the tautological issues,
methodological concerns, and the prescriptive nature of early RBT
work were identified in previous RBT critiques (e.g., Bromiley and
Fleming, 2002; Priem and Butler, 2001) and even in a review of
RBT critiques (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). While there are important
concerns that remain, research over the past 15 years has extended
RBT and overcome several of the criticisms (Barney et al., 2001,
2011).
For example, a reoccurring concern with the original RBT articles
is the treatment of time. A common critique of Barney (1991) is that
RBT does not adequately address time and thus provides a static as
opposed to dynamic perspective (Priem and Butler, 2001). How-
ever, this concern has been addressed by other scholars by exam-
ining the use and development of resources over time building on
work prior to Barney (1991) (e.g., Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Black and
Boal, 1994). Also, the incorporation of dynamic capabilities with the
RBT perspective has more explicitly sought to describe the
continuous restructuring and development of a firm's routines and
resources over time (Teece et al., 1997). Building on these founda-
tions, recent research in both the strategy and OM fields generally
accepts that firms must continuously develop and upgrade re-
sources, and thus capabilities as well, in order to remain competi-
tive (Sirmon et al., 2011; Teece, 2007; Wernerfelt, 2011). For
example, Allred et al. (2011) focused on the development and
transformation of resources into capabilities over time, and
empirically examined capability emergence through a longitudinal
design over the course of six years. However, despite the incorpo-
ration of time that has addressed the previous concern of static vs.
dynamic in RBT, opportunities continue to exist to consider the
temporal nature of resources and their influence, either in the form
of differing life cycle effects (Sirmon et al., 2011), or in terms the
amplification of firm resource heterogeneities over time
(Wernerfelt, 2011).
Bromiley and Rau (2016) also suggested that the lack of clarity
concerning resources hampers the ability to develop RBT. We share
this concern, but believe the multiple subfoci that populate the
research on RBT demonstrate the development and refinement of
RBT instead of its weakness. However, in our review we point out
that despite distinct definitions of resources and capabilities
developed in research on RBT and dynamic capabilities, research in
OM (and other fields as well) continues to use resources and ca-
pabilities interchangeably. Similarly, opportunities exist for theo-
retical advancement of RBT through greater integration with the
knowledge based view (KBV) and dynamic capabilities; however, it
was common in the research we reviewed to use these theories
almost interchangeably instead of clearly delineating the theories
and integrating their insights. Thus, while we share Bromiley and
Rau's concern over a lack of clarity in RBT research, we do not
believe that it is a ‘fatal flaw’ in the theoretical foundation giving
reason to abandon the theory; rather the lack of clarity exists
because researchers often do not use the advancements (e.g., the
differentiation of resources and capabilities) available in recent RBT
research.
Bromiley and Rau (2016) highlighted their concern about sus-
tained competitive advantage as the dependent variable in RBT.
This is an important part of the theoretical underpinnings of RBT.
Previous critiques of RBT have identified this same concern, and
recent research has responded by suggesting a shift in outcomes of
importance, such as by examining the micro-foundations of RBT
(Foss, 2011). Other scholars have used RBT in research focused on
mid-level outcomes, such as creating superior value for customers
(Sirmon et al., 2011), innovation, and perhaps short-term firm
performance. All of these outcomes can contribute to a competitive
advantage. Additionally, the focus on more proximal outcomes has
become increasingly important because of the heightened dyna-
mism in most industries (Wiggins and Ruefli, 2005). As such,
competitive advantage is a moving target requiring firms to achieve
a series of temporary competitive advantages (D'Aveni et al., 2010).
This increasing dynamism in the environment causes firms to
continuously upgrade their capabilities and implement strategic
changes in order to maintain competitive parity, much less achieve
advantages relative to their rivals (Derfus et al., 2008). For example,
as firms use practices such as benchmarking, and then engage in
imitation of other rivals' practices to reduce any discrepancies if the
firms are below the benchmark, the overall level of rivalry in the
industry increases. Thus, a combination of resources, capabilities,
and core competencies that once contributed to a competitive
advantage is quickly eroded, motivating firms to engage in
continual recombinations of existing resources and/or acquiring/
developing new resources, in both cases to create new capabilities
(Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Sirmon et al., 2007).
Finally, recent research has used RBT to explain large differences
in performance for firms, both individually and relative to the in-
dustry norms. In other words, explaining how firms achieve a
sustained competitive advantage does not require limiting the
discussion to only the top 10% of firms as suggested by Bromiley
and Rau, rather, scholars can use RBT to explain how different firms,
at varying levels of performance, can develop and sustain advan-
tages over rivals. For example, Trahms et al. (2013: 1297) suggest
RO is a useful theory for better understanding causes and conse-
quences of organizational decline and turnaround and specifically
the “dynamic management of resources.”
Overall, Bromiley and Rau (2016) identify important concerns in
the use of RBT, some of which echo key issues we identified in our
article (see Section 4.2.). Unfortunately, this commentary overlooks
much of the work expanding RBT and addressing previous criti-
cisms over the last 20 years, thus not providing OM researchers a
current view of RBT and its application in the OM field. However,
Bromiley and Rau conclude with a discussion of PBV which we
believe may add value to OM research, not as a substitute for RBT,
but instead as a complement to it.
3. Value of recent developments in RBT for future research
We believe that a practice based view could add value to
research in operations management. Yet in some cases, integration
with recent extensions of the RBT may add additional value. For
example, similar to the arguments about resources, specific
 M.A. Hitt et al. / Journal of Operations Management 41 (2016) 107e109
practices alone may not always add value. The firms often are not
equally adept at developing and especially implementing these
practices. For example, several firms in an industry may try to
implement similar total quality management (TQM) practices but
achieve varying levels of quality in the products produced. That is
because the firms vary in their capabilities to implement the
practices (and their capabilities may even vary across plants in the
same firm implementing TQM practices). These firms either have
different levels of resources needed and/or have bundled the re-
sources in different ways to create dissimilar capabilities (either
purposely or unintendedly). Thus, applying the resource orches-
tration perspective for analyzing the practices across these firms
helps us to identify the reasons for the variance in the quality of the
products produced.
Interestingly, Wowak et al. (2016) recently recommended
resource orchestration theory for use in examining suppliers'
involvement in the new product development process. Likewise
orchestrating (managing) resources (e.g., Sirmon et al., 2007, 2011)
to implement OM practices can be of value. Although there are
specific “practices” often outlined to implement a TQM process,
firms still need to identify and/or acquire the resources needed for
its portfolio in order to develop the capabilities for implementing
these practices effectively. And, the capabilities may be used in
different ways depending on the strategy employed. For example,
one firm may have a strategy to be the leader in the market with
new and unique products. As such, this firm must build a strong
R&D capability to produce new and highly innovative products
(e.g., build teams of excellent R&D engineers/scientists and perhaps
others such as operations managers, marketing personnel, sup-
pliers’ representatives, etc.). Another firm may have a strategy to
extract more value from its current product line, trying to keep the
products up-to-date and attractive in the market. As such, it will try
to build an R&D capability that continuously produces incremental
improvements in the current products (as opposed to developing
radically new products). The R&D capabilities in these two firms are
likely to be considerably different.
In addition to having specific strong capabilities (i.e., core
competencies), Sirmon et al. (2007, 2011) argue that the resource
orchestration processes must be synchronized to produce the ca-
pabilities needed to most effectively implement the strategies
chosen. Thus the firm must obtain the resources needed and then
use them to develop the capabilities necessary to perform the
practices selected that, in turn, are used to help implement the
desired strategy in an effective manner. Likewise, a firm has mul-
tiple capabilities (e.g., in R&D, marketing, production efficiency,
etc.). All of these must be coordinated and synchronized to provide
superior value for the customers. Thus, creating a competitive
advantage is more complex than represented in the early pre-
scriptions of RBT (e.g., Barney, 1991) and also as suggested by
Bromiley and Rau (2016) in this issue. According to a classic article
by Porter (1996), firms now commonly engage in a number of
similar practices (e.g., TQM, Benchmarking, etc.) but even so, they
may complete them differently, because of different capabilities.
Porter suggests that engaging in these practices can help firms
achieve operational effectiveness; however, engaging in these
practices alone is necessary yet insufficient to achieve a competi-
tive advantage. He argues that firms have to coordinate (‘manage
the fit’ in his terminology) across all of their activities to produce
superior value for customers and achieve a competitive advantage.
Thus, the challenge for those trying to imitate rivals may not be in
specific practices or capabilities, but how the capabilities are co-
ordinated (synchronized). Imitating practices can be done as
argued by Bromiley and Rau. However, it is difficult to imitate a
109
series of capabilities needed to perform all of the practices. And, it is
even more challenging to imitate how these capabilities are syn-
chronized to produce and distribute the product to the customer.
Many of the practices and capabilities, as well as their coordination,
are within the domain of operations management.
In summary, we agree with several of the RBT criticisms offered
by Bromiley and Rau. Also, we believe that their suggestion of a
practice-based-view has value. However, some of the important
criticisms of RBT have been overcome through recent extensions of
the earlier theoretical work. Additionally, the process of creating a
competitive advantage is more complex than suggested by Bro-
miley and Rau as we have argued herein. Thus, we strongly believe
that RBT continues to be relevant and valuable for OM scholars,
especially with knowledge of the current research and extensions
of the RBT, and when used carefully with sensitivity to its
limitations.
References
Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17,
99e120.
Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., Wright, M., 2011. The future of resource-based theory
revitalization or decline? J. Manag. 37, 1299e1315.
Barney, J.B., Wright, M., Ketchen, D.J., 2001. The resource-based view of the firm: ten
years after 1991. J. Manag. 27, 625e641.
Black, J.A., Boal, K.B., 1994. Strategic resources: traits, configurations and paths to
sustainable competitive advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 15, 131e131.
Bromiley, P., Fleming, L., 2002. The resource-based view of strategy: a behaviourist's
critique. In: Augier, M., March, J.G., Cyert, R.M. (Eds.), The Economics of Choice
Change and Organizations: Essays in Memory of Richard M Cyert Cheltenham.
Edward Elgar Publshing, UK.
Bromiley, P., Rau, D., 2016. Operations management and the resource based view:
another view. J. Operations Manag. 41 (in press).
D'Aveni, R.A., Dagnino, G.B., Smith, K.G., 2010. The age of temporary advantage.
Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 1371e1385.
Derfus, P.J., Maggitti, P.G., Grimm, C.M., Smith, K.G., 2008. The red queen effect:
competitive actions and firm performance. Acad. Manag. J. 51, 61e80.
Dierickx, I., Cool, K., 1989. Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of
competitive advantage. Manag. Sci. 35, 1504e1511.
Foss, N.J., 2011. Invited editorial: why micro-foundations for resource-based theory
are needed and what they may look like. J. Manag. 37, 1413e1428.
Hitt, M.A., Xu, K., Carnes, C.M., 2016. Resource based theory in operations man-
agement research. J. Oper. Manag. 41 (in press).
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C., Groen, A.J., 2010. The resource-based view: a review
and assessment of its critiques. J. Manag. 36, 349e372.
Pilkington, A., Meredith, J., 2009. The evolution of the intellectual structure of op-
erations management-1980-2006: a citation/co-citation analysis. J. Oper.
Manag. 27, 185e202.
Porter, M.E., 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review. NovembereDe-
cember, pp. 61e78.
Priem, R.L., Butler, J.E., 2001. Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 22e40.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., 2007. Managing firm resources in dynamic
environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Acad. Manag. Rev.
32, 273e292.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Gilbert, B.A., 2011. Resource orchestration to
create competitive advantage: breadth, depth and life cycle effects. J. Manag. 37,
1390e1412.
Taylor, A., Taylor, M., 2009. Operations management research: contemporary
themes, trends and potential future directions. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 29,
1316e1340.
Teece, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro-
foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 28,
1319e1350.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage-
ment. Strateg. Manag. J. 18, 509e534.
Trahms, C.A., Ndofor, H.A., Sirmon, D.G., 2013. Organizational decline and turn-
around: a review and agenda for future research. J. Manag. 39, 1277e1307.
Wernerfelt, B., 2011. The use of resources in resource acquisition. J. Manag. 37,
1369e1373.
Wiggins, R.R., Ruefli, T.W., 2005. Schumpeter's ghost: is hypercompetition making
the best of times shorter? Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 887e911.
Wowak, K.D., Craighead, C.W., Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M., 2016. Toward a “theoret-
ical toolbox” for the supplier-enabled fuzzy front end of the new product
development process. J. Supply Chain Manag. (in press).