Strengths Of GM

Acquisition and organisation of resources can be critical success factor in an organization. While on the other hand, change requires a firm to gain expand and utilise resource such as human, financial, knowledge as a crucial asset. Resource based approach supports this view and as Tywoniak (2007) claimed by that resource based view is the most dominant theory in history of management. This is achieved by targeting state of sustained competitive advantage by controlling resources and capabilities. This view emphasis on the need for a ‘fit’ among capabilities and external market, and since each firm has unique capabilities and resources, this result in achieving strategic

This case shows us that apart from transaction, translation and economic exposure to currency risk, firms also have the very real strategic impact on their competitive position from competitive exposure. Apart from GM’s exposure to the yen which is reflected in their financial statements, their competitive position vis-à-vis Japanese manufacturers is affected by a potentially declining yen. This is because a declining yen reduces the Japanese manufacturers’ $ cost, enabling them to pass on some of the benefit to US customers and thus taking some of GM’s market share. This will impact GM’s top and bottom line. However, GM has a difficult decision regarding managing this risk.

Barney, J. (2004). Firm resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Strategy: Process Content Context: an international perspective, de Wit & Meyer , 285-292.

The resource-based view(RBV), based on the internal environment of a company, explains the performance differences among firms in an assumption of that having a high performance (Wernerfelt,1984) are made up of bundles of resources that give them advantages in the maketing(Barney and Arikan, 2001). It figures out the resources are valuable, rare, costly-imitated and have an organizational orientation, also known as VRIO framework(Barney, 2002). The resources, refer to the

These two streams of research - market orientation and the RBV of the firm - form

Resource-based analysis of the firm determines which resources and capabilities result in which strengths or weaknesses

To begin with, heterogeneity of capabilities and resources of firms, which is explained as “enduring and systematic performance differences among relatively close rivals”, provides a foundation of the resource-based view (Song, et al.,2006). The implication of this assumption is that core competence conveys the valuable and unique feature of products to customers. The RBV disagrees with the opinion that the resources are homogeneous; if homogeneity is assumed to be essential to develop a proper strategy, the strategy can be easily copied by competitors, which will ultimately result in the dissipation of above-normal rents. Conversely, the unique and fixed resources on hand will lead to outstanding performance and ultimately turn to be a competitive advantage, under the circumstances that sustainable competitive advantage is achieved in an environment where competition does not exist.

1) Barney, J., (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, vol. 17 (1991), no. 1, pp. 99–120.

If a firm’s resources are both valuable and rare, a firm may achieve a competitive advantage (Newbert, 2008). A resource is considered valuable when it improves the efficiency and effectiveness of a strategy, and when it exploits external opportunities or neutralises external threats (Barney, 1991). This wording is somewhat confusing as it draws a direct connection with the environmental model, i.e. Porter’s (1985) five forces. The ‘value’ variable could therefore be rendered exogenous to the RBV (Priem and Butler, 2001). On the other hand, Peteraf (1993) praises the model for its internal focus and ability to uncover potential sources of competitive advantage which cannot be attributed to the external environment, notably because areas of value are often so difficult to identify (Newbert, 2008). The term ‘potential’ is used because not all resources have the ability to create a SCA

Resources are the source of the firm’s capabilities. Resources are bundled to create organisational capabilities. Some of a firm’s resources are tangible and intangible. Tangible resources are assets that can be seen and quantified. Intangible resources include assets that typically are rooted deeply in the firm’s history and have accumulated over time. Intangible resources are relatively difficult for competitors to analyse and imitate. The four types of tangible resources are financial, organisational, physical and technological. And the three types of intangible resources are human, innovation and reputational (Hanson, D., Hitt, M., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E., 2011, pp. 75-78).

Through an internal environment analysis, companies can identify and understand their own unique resources, capabilities, and competencies that are required for their sustainable competitive advantage. Resources, capabilities, and core competencies are the foundation of competitive advantage. There is no competitive advantages are permanently sustainable in any companies, so they have to consist on their current advantages and develop new advantages by internally understanding and analyzing their resources and capabilities. Competitors have their own unique resources, capabilities, and core competencies to create values for their customers. Both tangible and intangible resources, which include individual, social and organizational phenomena, are combined to generate capabilities. In turn, company’s capabilities are used to build core competencies. Also, core competencies are as a source of competitive advantage for a company to win in the competitive market.

For transforming a short-run competitive advantage into a sustained competitive advantage we require resources that are heterogeneous in nature and not perfectly mobile. This translates into valuable resources that are neither perfectly imitable nor substitutable without great effort. If these conditions are fulfilled then the bundle of resources can sustain the firm's above average returns.

Key External Factors Opportunities Overall Market Size Increasing Annual Market Growth Rate Low Technological Requirement Threats High Competitive Intensity High Inflationary Vulnerability High Customer Demand Environment Impact Social impact TOTAL 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.05 0.05 1.00 3 2 3 3 2 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.15 0.10 2.80 0.05 0.10 0.10 3 3 3 0.15 0.30 0.30 Weight Rating Weighted Score

For a business to be successful and have a competitive advantage, it is important to evaluate the company’s resources and capabilities (Pitt & Koufopoulos, 2012). Resources in a company are the productive assets owned (tangible or intangible) whereas capabilities are what the company can do with this (Grant, 2010). “Establishing competitive

This strategy emphasizes the use of an organization’s resources and capabilities to achieve a core competence that cannot be imitated by competitors. Furthermore, the resource based school argues that if an organization distinctively improves its internal capability; that is being able to have effective inside machinery to deliver products and services to customers, the organization will enjoy a massive advantage in the market. This school also argues that in order to have a competitive advantage, an organization must have resource and capabilities that are sophisticated to those of competitors (QuickMBA,