Managing Multiple Sources of Competitive Advantage in a Complex Competitive Environment

Abstract

The aim of this article is to review the literature on the topic of sustained and temporary competitive advantage creation, specifically in dynamic markets, and to propose further research possibilities. After having analyzed the main trends and scholars' works on the subject, it was concluded that a firm which has been experiencing erosion of its core sources of economic rent generation, should have diversified its strategy portfolio in a search for new sources of competitive advantage, ones that could compensate for the decline of profits provoked by intensive competitive environments. This review concludes with the hypothesis that firms who have decided to manage complex competitive environments should have developed a multiple strategies framework approach. As a result of the literature review, we propose a reconceptualization of the construct hypercompetition adding the concept of market complexity, which allowed us to raise important further research possibilities.

Dynamic Competition in Telecommunications: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Lee & Marcu, 2007; Waverman et al, 2005). Competitiveness Factors in Telecommunication that are customarily associated are VAS, change in a sales promotion (Nekmahmud & Rahman, 2018), political fluctuations, technology improvements (Feizi, 2019; Dastidar, 2015), deregulation facilitates (Todeva & John, 2002), intensity of rivalry (Lapersonne, 2013) changing customer tastes, globalization, and cultural changes (Lehr, 2014; Pandiya et al, 2012), (Baruah et al, 2015). Nowadays firms are endeavoring to capitalize on 5G technology.…”

Understanding Critical Variables Contributing to Competitive Advantages of International High-Speed Railway Contractors

“…Variables Literature V1 Tender price Thompson and Coe (1997), Zekiri (2017) V2 Financial performance Wingwon and Piriyakul (2010) V3 Financing capability Grant (1991), Li and Ogunmokun (2001), Piercy, Kaleka, and Katsikeas (1998) V4 Historical contract performance T. Obloj and K. Obloj (2006), Williams, Schnake, and Fredenberger (2005), Goldberg, Cohen, and Fiegenbaum (2003) V5 Social responsibility Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen (2011), Sousa Filho, Wanderley, and Gómez (2010), Zhang, Cavusgil, and Roath (2003) V6 Cultural difference Soupata (2001), Lapersonne (2013) V7 Productivity Helms (1996), Istvan (1992) V8 Internationalization Lehrer, Schlegelmilch, and Behnam (2009), Yeung (1999) V9 Cooperation ability Wu, Lin, and Chien (2011), Alvarez and Barney (2001) V10 Human resources Stroh and Caligiuri (1998), Lado and Wilson (1994) V11 Services Gebauer, Gustafsson, and Witell (2011), Oliva and Kallenberg (2003) V12 Similar performance and experience Fu, Drew, and Lo (2002), Doloi, Iyer, and Sawhney (2011), Holt, Olomolaiye, and Harris (1995) Likert 5-point scale was used to elicit respondents' opinions about the importance of each variable, with 1 being the least important and 5 being the most important. Brief descriptions of some unusual variables were also attached to the questionnaire to ensure that all the respondents were using the same definition for each of the variables.…”

O Contexto Científico da Gestão do Portfolio de Produtos para Empresas de Manufatura

“…So as to identify potential gains in the field of operation, Oliveira and Rozenfeld (2010), Kester, Griffin, Hultink and Lauche (2011), Lapersonne (2013) and Burin Neto, Jugend, Barbalho and Silva (2013) define that product portfolio management (PPM) engages in a dynamic decision making process to the extent that managing the prioritization of the items that are most relevant before given contexts is deemed one of the most critical tasks to ensure the organization is successful.…”