Seduced into collaboration: A resource-based choice experiment to explain make, buy or ally strategies of SMEs

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 120, Issue , 2017, Pages 284-297

  van Rijnsoever, Frank J ^a,b   Kempkes, Sander N ^a   Chappin, Maryse M H ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Internal or external R D; Make, buy or ally strategy; Make, buy, ally; Resource based view

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; INNOVATION PROJECTS; MAKE, BUY OR ALLY STRATEGY; MAKE, BUY, ALLY; POLICY MEASURES; RESOURCE-BASED VIEW; SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZE ENTERPRISE (SMES);

DECISION MAKING;

INDUSTRIAL POLICY; INNOVATION; POLICY MAKING; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISE; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

EID: 85015385647     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.015     Document Type: Article

References (142)

1. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., Williams, M., Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 26 (1994), 271–292.
2. Adler, P.S., Kwon, S.-W., Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 27 (2002), 17–40.
3. Aguinis, H., Bradley, K.J., Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organ. Res. Methods 17 (2014), 351–371.
4. Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.P.J.H., Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg. Manag. J. 14 (1993), 33–46.
5. Antonioli, D., Marzucchi, A., Savona, M., Pain shared, pain halved? Cooperation as a coping strategy for innovation barriers. J. Technol. Transf., 2016, 1–24.
6. Ardito, L., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Albino, V., From technological inventions to new products: a systematic review and research agenda of the main enabling factors. Eur. Manag. Rev. 12 (2015), 113–147.
7. Argote, L., Epple, D., Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247 (1990), 920–924.
8. Baltas, G., Doyle, P., Random utility models in marketing research: a survey. J. Bus. Res. 51 (2001), 115–125.
9. Bandura, A., Social Learning Theory. 1977, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
10. Barajas, A., Huergo, E., Moreno, L., Measuring the economic impact of research joint ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme. J. Technol. Transf. 37 (2012), 917–942.
11. Barney, J.B., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17 (1991), 99–120.
12. Barney, J.B., Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J. Manag. 27 (2001), 643–650.
13. Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 14 (2005), 1079–1083.
14. Becker, M.C., Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Ind. Corp. Chang. 13 (2004), 643–677.
15. Ben-Akiva, M., Morikawa, T., Shiroishi, F., Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J. Bus. Res. 23 (1991), 253–268.
16. Ben-Akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H., Rao, V., Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Mark. Lett. 5 (1994), 335–349.
17. Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Molter, B., Glockner, A., Oops, I did it again - relapse errors in routinized decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 93 (2004), 62–74.
18. Bloom, M., Milkovich, G.T., Relationships among risk, incentive pay, and organizational performance. Acad. Manag. J. 41 (1998), 283–297.
19. Bonesso, S., Comacchio, A., Pizzi, C., Technology sourcing decisions in exploratory projects. Technovation 31 (2011), 573–585.
20. Boon, W.P.C., Chappin, M.M.H., Perenboom, J., Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams. Environ. Sci. Pol. 40 (2014), 57–68.
21. Borah, A., Tellis, G.J., Make, buy, or ally? Choice of and payoff from announcements of alternate strategies for innovations. Mark. Sci. 33 (2014), 114–133.
22. Boudreau, K.J., Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organ. Sci. 23 (2012), 1409–1427.
23. Braga, C.A.P., Fink, C., Sepulveda, C.P., Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development. 2000, World Bank Publications.
24. Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., Groen, A., The evolution of business incubators: comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation 32 (2012), 110–121.
25. Carbonara, N., Innovation processes within geographical clusters: a cognitive approach. Technovation 24 (2004), 17–28.
26. Carlsson, S., Corvello, V., Inauen, M., Schenker-Wicki, A., The impact of outside-in open innovation on innovation performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 14 (2011), 496–520.
27. Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R\&D and external knowledge acquisition. Manag. Sci. 52 (2006), 68–82.
28. Chan, K.F., Lau, T., Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: the good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation 25 (2005), 1215–1228.
29. Chesbrough, H.W., Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
30. Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1990), 128–152.
31. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (Or Not). 2000, National Bureau of Economic Research.
32. Conner, K.R., Prahalad, C.K., A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organ. Sci. 7 (1996), 477–501.
33. Crook, T.R., Combs, J.G., Ketchen, D.J., Aguinis, H., Organizing around transaction costs: what have we learned and where do we go from here?. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 27 (2013), 63–79.
34. Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm Prenctice-Hall International Series in Management. 1963, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
35. David, P.A., Intellectual property institutions and the panda's thumb: patents, copyrights, and trade secrets in economic theory and history. Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, 19, 1993, 29.
36. Davidsson, P., Honig, B., The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur. 18 (2003), 301–331.
37. De Bekker-Grob, E.W., Hol, L., Donkers, B., Van Dam, L., Habbema, J.D.F., Van Leerdam, M.E., Kuipers, E.J., Essink-Bot, M.-L., Steyerberg, E.W., Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Value Health 13 (2010), 315–323.
38. Del Canto, J.G., Gonzalez, I.S., A resource-based analysis of the factors determining a firm's R&D activities. Res. Policy 28 (1999), 891–905.
39. Eisenhardt, K.M., Schoonhoven, C.B., Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 7 (1996), 136–150.
40. Epple, D., Argote, L., Devadas, R., Organizational learning curves: a method for investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing. Organ. Sci. 2 (1991), 58–70.
41. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res. Policy 29 (2000), 109–123.
42. Eurostat, Aggregations of Manufacturing Based on NACE Rev 2. 2009.
43. Eurostat, Economic statistics on high-tech industries and Knowledge Intensive Services at the national level (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2) [WWW Document]. URL http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=htec_eco_sbs2&lang=en, 2013.
44. Faber, J., van Dijk, J., van Rijnsoever, F., Incentives and barriers for R&D-based SMEs to participate in European research programs: an empirical assessment for the Netherlands. Sci. Public Policy 43:3 (2016), 414–428.
45. Felin, T., Zenger, T.R., Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Policy 43 (2014), 914–925.
46. Fey, C.F., Birkinshaw, J., External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D performance. J. Manag. 31 (2005), 597–621.
47. Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J., Coast, J., Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 26 (2007), 171–189.
48. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Kumar, N., Make, buy, or ally: a transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. J. 49 (2006), 519–543.
49. Granovetter, M.S., The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol., 1973, 1360–1380.
50. Grant, R.M., Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17 (1996), 109–122.
51. Grant, R.M., Baden-Fuller, C., A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. J. Manag. Stud. 41 (2004), 61–84.
52. Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 37 (2003), 681–698.
53. Greve, H.R., Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Adm. Sci. Q. 43 (1998), 58–86.
54. Greve, H.R., Organizational Learning From Performance Feedback - A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Gupta, A.K., Tesluk, P.E., Taylor, M.S., Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organ. Sci. 18 (2007), 885–897.
56. Hagedoorn, J., Sharing intellectual property rights—an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 12 (2003), 1035–1050.
57. Hall, B.H., The financing of research and development. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 18 (2002), 35–51.
58. Hall, P.A., Soskice, D.W., Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. 2001, Wiley Online Library.
59. Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J.H., Structural inertia and organisational change. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49 (1984), 149–164.
60. Haughton, D., Legrand, P., Woolford, S., Review of three latent class cluster analysis packages: latent gold, poLCA, and MCLUST. Am. Stat. 63 (2009), 81–91.
61. Hellmann, T., The allocation of control rights in venture capital contracts. RAND J. Econ. 29 (1998), 57–76.
62. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.D., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
63. Hisrich, R.D., Smilor, R.W., The university and business incubation: technology transfer through entrepreneurial development. J. Technol. Transf. 13 (1988), 14–19.
64. Hitt, M.A., Biermant, L., Shimizu, K., Kochhar, R., Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 44 (2001), 13–28.
65. Hoppe, H.C., Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 18 (2000), 315–338.
66. Huber, G.P., Organizational learning; the contributing processes and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2 (1991), 88–115.
67. Huizingh, E.K.R.E., Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31 (2011), 2–9.
68. Jack, S.L., The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 42 (2005), 1233–1259.
69. Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E., Gopalakrishnan, S., Internal vs. external learning in new product development: effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Manag. 30 (2000), 213–224.
70. Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., Gilsing, V., A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25 (2005), 609–619.
71. Kleinknecht, A., Reijnen, J.O.N., Why do firms cooperate on R&D? An empirical study. Res. Policy 21 (1992), 347–360.
72. Kløjgaard, M.E., Bech, M., Søgaard, R., Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J. Choice Model. 5 (2012), 1–18.
73. Knight, G.A., Entrepreneurship and strategy in the international SME. J. Int. Manag. 7 (2001), 155–171.
74. Kogut, B., Zander, U., Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3 (1992), 383–397.
75. Kotha, R., George, G., Friends, family, or fools: entrepreneur experience and its implications for equity distribution and resource mobilization. J. Bus. Ventur. 27 (2012), 525–543.
76. Kreutzer, M., Selecting the right growth mechanism: the choice between internal development, strategic alliances, and mergers & acquisitions. Balanced Growth, 2012, Springer, 77–94.
77. Kutzhanova, N., Lyons, T.S., Lichtenstein, G.A., Skill-based development of entrepreneurs and the role of personal and peer group coaching in enterprise development. Econ. Dev. Q. 23 (2009), 193–210.
78. Laursen, K., Salter, A., Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?. Res. Policy 33 (2004), 1201–1215.
79. Laursen, K., Salter, A., Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 27 (2006), 131–150.
80. Lavie, D., The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (2006), 638–658.
81. Lefebvre, V.M., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Sia-Ljungström, C., Minarelli, F., Kühne, B., Gellynck, X., SMEs' preference for innovation networks: a choice experimental approach. Creat. Innov. Manag. 23:4 (2014), 415–435.
82. Levitt, B., March, J.J.G., Organizational learning. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14 (1988), 319–340.
83. Lieberman, M.B., Montgomery, D.B., 1St-mover advantages. Strateg. Manag. J. 9 (1988), 41–58.
84. Lin, B.-W., Wu, C.-H., How does knowledge depth moderate the performance of internal and external knowledge sourcing strategies?. Technovation 30 (2010), 582–589.
85. Lin, Z., Yang, H., Arya, B., Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association. Strateg. Manag. J. 30 (2009), 921–940.
86. Lindelöf, P., Löfsten, H., Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden–implications for strategy and performance. Small Bus. Econ. 20 (2003), 245–258.
87. Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., Welch, N., Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull., 127, 2001, 267.
88. Louviere, J.J., Woodworth, G., Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 20 (1983), 350–367.
89. Love, J.H., Roper, S., Internal versus external R&D: a study of R&D choice with sample selection. Int. J. Econ. Bus. 9 (2002), 239–255.
90. Magidson, J., Vermunt, J.K., Removing the scale factor confound in multinomial logit choice models to obtain better estimates of preference. Sawtooth Software Conference, 2007, 139.
91. Mangematin, V., Nesta, L., What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb?. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 18 (1999), 149–172.
92. Manski, C.F., The structure of random utility models. Theor. Decis. 8 (1977), 229–254.
93. March, J.G., A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. 1994, Free Press, New York (Toronto: New York).
94. Masyn, K., Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. Little, T., (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 2013, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 375–393.
95. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Economics, 1974, Academic Press, New York, 105–142.
96. McKelvey, M., Zaring, O., Ljungberg, D., Creating innovative opportunities through research collaboration: an evolutionary framework and empirical illustration in engineering. Technovation 39–40 (2015), 26–36.
97. Meeus, M.T.H., Oerlemans, L.A.G., Hage, J., Industry-public knowledge infrastructure interaction: intra- and inter-organizational explanations of interactive learning. Ind. Innov. 11 (2004), 327–352.
98. Mention, A.L., Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: which influence on innovation novelty?. Technovation 31 (2011), 44–53.
99. Mian, S., Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework. J. Bus. Ventur. 12 (1997), 251–285.
100. Miotti, L., Sachwald, F., Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: an integrated framework of analysis. Res. Policy 32 (2003), 1481–1499.
101. Montgomery, D.B., Lieberman, M.L., First-mover (dis) advantages: retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 19 (1998), 1111–1125.
102. Mudambi, S.M., Tallman, S., Make, buy or ally? Theoretical perspectives on knowledge process outsourcing through alliances. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (2010), 1434–1456.
103. Nieto, M.J., Santamaría, L., The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27 (2007), 367–377.
104. Nooteboom, B., Stam, E., Micro-foundations of Innovation Policy. 2008, WRR, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
105. Nylund, K.L., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B.O., Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct. Equ. Model. 14 (2007), 535–569.
106. Oppewal, H., Louviere, J.J., Timmermans, H.J.P., Modifying conjoint methods to model managers' reactions to business environmental trends: An application to modeling retailer reactions to sales trends. J. Bus. Res. 50 (2000), 245–257.
107. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., Parasuraman, A., Crowd-funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. J. Serv. Manag. 22 (2011), 443–470.
108. Ozer, M., Reducing the demand uncertainties at the fuzzy-front-end of developing new online services. Res. Policy 36 (2007), 1372–1387.
109. Pisano, G., Can science be a business?. Harv. Bus. Rev., 84, 2006, 114.
110. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (2003), 879–903.
111. Powell, W.W.W., Koput, K.W.K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 41 (1996), 116–145.
112. Quintas, P., Wield, D., Massey, D., Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation 12 (1992), 161–175.
113. Rao, R.S., Chandy, R.K., Prabhu, J.C., The fruits of legitimacy:why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. J. Mark. 72 (2008), 58–75.
114. Richard, P.J., Devinney, T.M., Yip, G.S., Johnson, G., Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice. J. Manag. 35:3 (2009), 718–804.
115. van Rijnsoever, F.J., Hagen, P., Willems, M., Preferences for alternative fuel vehicles by Dutch local governments. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 20 (2013), 15–20.
116. Robinson, P.B., Sexton, E.a., The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. J. Bus. Ventur. 9 (1994), 141–156.
117. Roeder, K., Lynch, K.G., Nagin, D.S., Modeling uncertainty in latent class membership: a case study in criminology. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 94 (1999), 766–776.
118. Rosenkopf, L., McGrath, P., Advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of novelty in organizational research. Organ. Sci. 22 (2011), 1297–1311.
119. Sælensminde, K., Inconsistent choices in stated choice data. Transportation 28 (2001), 269–296.
120. Sapienza, H.J., Gupta, A.K., Impact of agency risks and task uncertainty on venture capitalist–CEO interaction. Acad. Manag. J. 37 (1994), 1618–1632.
121. Schilling, M.A.A., Phelps, C.C.C., Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag. Sci. 53 (2007), 1113–1126.
122. Schwarz, G., Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 6 (1978), 461–464.
123. Sitkin, S.B., Pablo, A.L., Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 17 (1992), 9–38.
124. Slevin, D.P., The innovation boundary: a specific model and some emperical results. Adm. Sci. Q. 16 (1971), 515–532.
125. Suarez, F.F., Lanzolla, G., The role of environmental dynamics in building a first mover advantage theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (2007), 377–392.
126. Swait, J., Louviere, J., The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Mark. Res., 1993, 305–314.
127. Teece, D.J., Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 15 (1986), 285–305.
128. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18 (1997), 509–533.
129. Teirlinck, P., Spithoven, A., Research collaboration and R&D outsourcing: different R&D personnel requirements in SMEs. Technovation 33 (2013), 142–153.
130. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?. Res. Policy 35 (2006), 596–608.
131. Van Rijnsoever, F.J., Meeus, M.T.H., Donders, A.R.T., The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: an experimental approach. Res. Policy 41 (2012), 833–847.
132. Van Rijnsoever, F.J., Welle, L., Bakker, S., Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies. J. Technol. Transf. 39 (2014), 635–661.
133. Van Rijnsoever, F.J., Van der Berg, J., Koch, J., Hekkert, M.P., Smart innovation policy: how network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology. Res. Policy 44 (2015), 1094–1107.
134. Vermunt, J.K., Magidson, J., Latent class cluster analysis. Hagenaars, J.A., McCutcheon, A.L., (eds.) Applied Latent Class Analysis, 2002, Cambridge University, Cambridge, 89–106.
135. Verona, G., A resource-based view of product development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (1999), 132–142.
136. Verspagen, B., University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. J. Econ. Surv. 20 (2006), 607–632.
137. Verworn, B., A structural equation model of the impact of the “fuzzy front end” on the success of new product development. Res. Policy 38 (2009), 1571–1581.
138. Veugelers, R., Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Res. Policy 26 (1997), 303–315.
139. Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B., Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 28 (1999), 63–80.
140. Wernerfelt, B., A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 5 (1984), 171–180.
141. Williamson, O.E., Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. De Economist 146 (1998), 23–58.
142. Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B., Snell, S.A., Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. J. Manag. 27 (2001), 701–721.