International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Competitive Strategy Role in Developing SMEs with RBV Perspective: A Literature Review
*Husnah1, Bambang Subroto2, Siti Aisjah2 and Djumahir2
1
Economics Faculty, University of Tadulako, Indonesia, 2Economics and Business Faculty,
University of Brawijaya, Indonesia
*husnahatjo@yahoo.co.id
Abstract
This paper aims to explore the theory and research findings using descriptions about the
competitive strategy role in determining financial performance based on intangible
resources. This study uses a literature method. The analysis showed that Resource Base View
(RBV) theory is a fundamental in determining internal resources. Intangible resources are
more important than external resources. Intangible resources that owned and controlled by
the company are used as a basis of competitive strategy formulation and implementation to
achieve optimal financial performance. Theoretical implications of this research is to enrich
strategic management and financial management literature, and practical implications of
this research is useful for stakeholders or decision-makers to improve the SMEs optimum
performance.
Keyword: Competitive Strategy, RBV, SMEs
1. Introduction
Strategic management literature shows that strategy compatibility with the resources
owned are important beginning for company performance improvement. This is consistent
with Wernerfelt (1984), and Grant (2010) views that strategic resources that owned and
controlled by company are used as a base formulation and implementation of strategies to
achieve optimal business performance. In addition, Barney (1991) asserts that the survival
or corporate excellence depends on its resources, as well as what strategies are chosen to
empower those resources so that they can respond to the opportunities and challenges of
the external environment.
Foss (1997) argues that resource-based strategy theory can distinguish resources that can
be controlled to implement the strategy and the resource differences are relatively stable.
That is, companies define and implement a strategy based on resources. Their intercompany strategy will differ because different companies have differ resources. In line with
this thought, Peteraf (1993); Fahy (1999); & Finney (2007) suggested that the
heterogeneous resource can make various of strategy implementation and benefits
(Profitability) acquired company will be different. That is, the significance of the strategy to
generate competitive advantage can be achieved if the determination and implementation
of the strategy based on company resources strength. Therefore, the resources strength will
make meaning to create company performance.
The selection strategy according to Jauch & Glueck (1995) is a decision to choose the best
strategy to meet corporate objectives. Decisions making will involve decisions on
alternatives, consideration of selection factors, assessment of alternatives against the
criteria, and perform the actual selection. This means that the selection strategy based on
48
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
selective resources to achieve the company goal. Research on SMEs show they using option
strategies based on Porter theory. Porter suggested that the issue of entrepreneurship
(SME) should be seen as a product of the company to create value (Slater, 2006). Pribadi &
Kanai (2011) conducted a study on 258 SMEs in East Java, Indonesia. Internal factors
(tangible assets, intelligence property, organizational property, reputation assets,
capabilities/skills) and external factors (barrier of entry, suppliers power, buyer power,
substitution items, competitive firm) were studied to determine its effect on performance
company, with the company strategy as moderating variables (cost leadership and
differentiation). The results show internal and external factors affect on company
performance through corporate strategy mediation.
Purwohandoko (2009) focuses on company internal resources (tangible and intangible
assets) and use competitive strategy as a mediating variable (low cost leadership,
differentiation and focus). The analysis shows that the larger scale, the stronger the internal
resources portfolio owned, the better market orientation implementation, the higher
performance achievement. Meanwhile, the competitive strategy is selected and
implemented by enterprise differently, depending on its business scale. Large-scale
enterprises tend to use low-cost leadership strategy and small-scale enterprises tend to use
focus strategy. However, all sizes are not leaving the differentiation strategy as a
differentiator and value for customers.
Muchtolifah research (2008) focuses on intangible assets (human capital and organizational
capital) to explain the company's resource strategy derived from the human resources
(human capital). Human resources, both in terms of formal education as well as knowledge
and skills, affect the business management. Furthermore, Sampurno (2010) stated that the
alignment of the Human Resources (HR) and business strategies have an influence on
financial performance.
Edelman (2002) conducted a study of 410 SMEs in Boston. The variables used in this
research are the Human Resources (human capital) and organizational resources
(organizational capital). Mediating variables, namely the strategy quality/customer service
and innovation strategies, determine its effect on performance as measured by Return on
Sales (ROS). The analysis shows the resources (human capital and organizational capital) and
the partial strategy has no effect on performance. Influence of resources on performance
will be significant when mediated by strategy. Human capital and organizational capital can
improve the SMEs performance by implementing the quality strategy/customer service.
Innovation strategy in SMEs is supported by human capital but not the organizational
capital. The study by Hitt et al. (2001); O'Regan & Ghobadian (2004); Finney et al. (2005);
Amoako-Gympah (2008), and Kong et al. (2009). It support that element intangible assets
(human capital and organizational capital) had no effect (low impact) on the performance
when not mediated by Porter's competitive strategy.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Concept of Intangible Assets, competitive strategies and performance
49
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Haanes and Lowendahl (1997) classify intangible assets into competence and relational
resources. Competence consists of two levels, namely the individual (knowledge, skills,
talent/intelligence) and organizational (databases, technology, procedures). Relational
refers to the company's reputation and customer loyalty. Opinion was enhanced by the
Roos & Roos (1997); Choo & Bontis (2002), and Daum (2005) states that the intangible asset
consists of human, organizational and relational capital. Relational capital is not only dealing
with customers, but also deals with the stakeholders (customers, suppliers, government,
investors and relevant associations).
Although there are several versions the components of intangible assets, in the end there
are only three schemes are often cited in the study, proposed scheme Sveiby (1997),
Stewart (1997), and Edvinsson & Sullivan (1996). The term intangible assets and Intellectual
capital is basically same. All three schemes have the same three elements, namely
intellectual capital that lies in man, the intellectual capital inherent in the organization, and
intellectual capital related to external relations (Purnomosidhi, 2006). All three schemes can
be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Intellectual Capital Scheme
Elemen/Author
Intellectual capital
Intellectual capital
Intellectual capital
elements inherent in
inherent in
inherent in the
human
organization
relationship
Edvinson
Human Capital
Organizational
Customer Capital
Capital
Stewart
Human Capital
Structural Capital
Customer Capital
Sveiby
Employee Competence Internal Structure
External Structure
Sources: Purnomosidhi (2006)
The first element in Table 1 illustrates human ability in entity that created from a mixture of
several attributes, such as abilities, attitudes, and relationships. Human capital is located in
the mind, body, and individual action, and will be lost if they left the company. The second
element, Organizational capital, reflects the ability of the company from the systems,
processes, structure, culture, strategy, policy, and ability to innovate. The third element,
customer/relational capital is an ability gained from relationships with external parties in
ways typical, such as connection, understanding, loyalty, and business activities (Demediuk,
2002). Opinion was improved that relational capital is the company relationship value with
the customer, suppliers, government, investors and relevant associations. That is, company
knowledge associated with external parties (stakeholders).
The analysis results of company internal and external environment is information needed to
develop a strategic intent and strategic mission (Hitt et al. 1997:20-21). Strategic intent is
company’s utilization of internal resources, capabilities and core potential to do what was
previously regarded as a goal that can not be achieved in a competitive environment.
Strategic mission come from strategic intent, an application of strategic intent. Strategic
mission gives a general description the products to be manufactured and markets that
support the potential core usage. Once formulated, strategic intent and strategic mission
50
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
become basis of business strategy development and corporate strategy. Business level
strategy emphasizes the measures to be taken to provide value for customers and getting
competitive advantage through the utilization of core competencies in the market for a
certain product. Thus, business-level strategy is based on company specific core
competencies and indicates how an organization intends to compete in a particular product
market and gain a competitive advantage over its competitors.
Implementing strategy as a means to achieve organizational goals will require management
functions. Strategy implementation is part of management Strategy. Management strategy
is a set of managerial decisions and actions that determine the performance of the company
in the long run. Management strategies include environmental scanning, strategy
formulation, strategic planning, and long-term planning, strategy implementation and
evaluation and control (Wheelen & Hunger, 2001). Management strategy emphasizes the
observation and evaluation of environmental opportunities and threats by looking at
company strengths and weaknesses.
The word strategy is defined as important actions to organization. While Business strategy
focuses on improving the competitive position of products and services in a particular
industry or market segment served by the company (Wheelen & Hunger, 2001). Porter
offers three ‘generic’ competitive strategy to outperform other firms in a particular
industry: low cost, differentiation, and focus (Porter, 1993). Furthermore, Porter argues that
a company's competitive advantage is determined by a competitive range, the breadth
market that targeted by business unit or company. Before using any of these strategies, the
company or business unit must select the range of product variation to be produced,
distribution channels to be used, buyer type who will be served, geographic area to be
covered, and kind of industry that would be competing. The determination should reflect an
understanding of company unique resources. In other words, a company or business unit
can select the target area (emphasis on mass market medium size) or narrow goals
(emphasis on niche markets). This strategy can be combined from the two types of target
markets and two competing strategies that produce four variations of generic strategies.
When low cost and differentiation strategies is used to meet the target market area, then
known as cost leadership strategy and differentiation. If target market is narrow, then
known as cost focus and focused differentiation strategies.
Gary Siegel & Helene (in Mulyadi & Supriyono, 2001) defines assessment of financial
performance as periodic determination the operational effectiveness of organization, and
employees based on objectives, standards and criteria previously set. The main objective of
performance appraisal is to motivate employees to achieve organizational goals and to
comply with the standards of behavior that has been previously defined in order to produce
the desired actions and outcomes. Measurements used to assess the organization
performance depend on how the unit will be assessed and how the objectives will be
achieved. The targets set at strategy formulation stage in a strategic management process, it
should really be used to measure the performance of the company during the
implementation strategy.
51
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Focus of financial performance measurement that based on the manager/owner
perspective has been widely studied. The use of financial measures, particularly in SMEs,
based on Ho & Choy (2010) as follows:
1. Financial performance: can reflect the actual performance of company
2. Financial performance: can be divided into several dimensions, including efficiency (ROI),
growth (change in sales), and profit (net profit margin)
3. Financial performance measurement: is commonly used in existing studies by researchers
to determine the success of firms
4. Financial performance: stated that subjective measurement is easier to collect and is
effective for measuring a firms’ performance.
Based on previous studies of Sharabati & Bontis (2010), Leitner (2010), and Pirre (2011), the
indicator of performance measurement refers to business performance, the non-financial
performance (productivity and market valuation) and financial performance (profitability).
Then the concept of David (2011) revealed that financial benefits to businesses that using
different strategic management concepts show significant improvements in sales,
profitability and productivity than firms without systematic strategic planning activities.
2.2. RBV Role in Determining Intangible Asset, Competitive Strategy and Performance.
According to David (2011) RBV approach to get a competitive advantage believes that
company internal resources is more important than external factors in order to achieve and
sustain competitive advantage. The RBV view proponents believe that organizational
performance will be determined by a various internal resources that can be grouped by
three broad categories: physical, human, and organizational resources. RBV theory found a
real resource help companies seize opportunities and neutralize threats.
Kuncoro (2005) describes the states for RBV models with above-average returns for a firm is
determined by company. This model focuses on development or acquisition of valuable
resources and capabilities that difficult or impossible to imitate by competitors. The RBV
view found resource companies far more important than industry structure in obtaining and
maintaining assets and capabilities.
In the RBV approach, primary focus of an organization is resources and capabilities.
Although the RBV approach focuses on analyzing company internal organization, but it does
not mean ignoring important external factors. This approach links company's internal
capabilities with external environment (what is requested and what is offered by
competitors). Capability becomes a core competency when companies meet four criteria
sustainable competitive advantage (Valuable, Rare, Imperfectly imitable, Nonsubstitutable/VRIN). Relationships VRIN criteria with Sustained Competitive Advantage
(SCA) refers to the Barney (1991) framework as follows:
Firm Resource
Heterogeneity
Value
Rareness
Imperfect Imitability
- History Dependent
- Causal Ambiguit
- Social Complexity
Substitutability
Sustained
Competitive
Advantage
52
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Figure 1. Resource Relation, VRIN and SCA
Sources: Barney (1991)
Hitt at el. (2011) asserts that VRIN is a core competences. Core competences are a source of
competitive advantage. The four criteria are described below:
Table 1. Four Criteria of SCA
Valuable Capabilities
Rare Capabilities
Costly-to-Imitate Capabilities
Nonsubstituable Capabilities
 Help a firm neutralize threats or exploit
opportunities
 Are not possessed by many other
 Historical : a unique and a valuable organizational
culture or brand nama
 Ambiguous cause : The cause and used of a
competence are unclear
 Social complexity : Interpersonal relationship,
trust, and friendship among managers, suppliers,
and customers
 Not strategic equivalent
Source: Hitt at el. (2011)
Hitt et al. (2011) defines resources as inputs to production process, such as goods capital,
employees ability, patents, finances and talented managers. Generally, corporate resources
can be classified into three categories: physical resources, human resources, and
organization. Only one resource may not produce sustainable competitive advantage so it
takes a combination and integration of a resources collection in order to achieve
competitive advantage. Capability is ability of a set resources to integrally perform a task or
activity. Capability is result of an integrated resource group.
RBV Model states unique resources and capabilities are basis to make a strategy. The
strategy chosen should allow company to use its core competencies to seize opportunities
in external environment. Integration of environmental resources is a condition of
competitive strategy. Company's strategy and performance has feedback effect on
competitive environment and resources. All these changes result in new information that
will result new resource development opportunities. Thus, the strategy can be viewed as an
on going sequence of actions and reactions are conditioned by resource companies and the
competitive environment (Bridoux, 2004). The relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.
Resources
Strategy
(Competitive
Behaviour)
Competitif
Enviroment
Sustainable
Competitive
Advantage
(SCA)
Performance
53
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Figure 2. RBV Approach to Performance and Competition
Sources: Bridoux (2004)
Competitive advantages that based on intangible assets will affect the superior
performance achievement. Performance achievement divided into two non-financial and
financial performance, more details are presented in Figure 3 as follows:
Management’s Strategic Choice :



Resource identication
Resource Development/Protection
Resource Deployment
Key Resources
 Tangible asset
 Intangible asset
 Capabilities
Superior Performance
Sustainable
Competitive
Advantage


Market Performance
Financial Performance
Value to Customer
Figure 3. RBV Relations, SCA and Superior Performance
Source: Fahy and Smithee (1999)
Figure 4 shows that RBV analysis implementation should focus on identifying resources,
which contain all sources of value identified in VRIN criteria. The powerful resource is a basis
for developing a competitive advantage and build successful strategies. According to Hitt
et.al. (1997), intangible assets are resources that can not be seen, it is difficult to
understand and imitated by competitors. As a source of sustainable competitive advantage,
managers prefer to use bottom "Intangible" resources of company capabilities and core
competencies. This view is made up of the various results of research conducted by
manager (Grant, 1991).
RBV Theory
Internal
Resources
Intangible
Asset
VRIN Criteria
SCA
Performance
Figure 4. Relations Theory RBV, Intangible Assets, SCA and Performance
Sources: Concept Development
3. Discussion
Industries that previously relied on physical tangible asset make transition to a new
economy. Production of goods and services as well as value creation being dependent on
intangible assets (Daum, 2005). Sampurno (2010) asserts that intangible asset and effective
management are sources of sustainable competitive advantage. This has motivate many
54
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
companies to improve the performance of its non-financial assets because the strategy
significantly influence overall company performance (Choo & Bontis, 2002).
Lev (2001) assess that intangible assets are the most valuable asset for company. The role
and significance of intangible asset is to increase long-term productivity and efficiency of the
capital that has been invested in company (Hussi, 2004). Most experts argue that intangible
resources are more able to generate a sustainable competitive advantage (Hitt et al. 1997).
Therefore, in value creation, the focus shifted from the use of individual assets into a group
of assets, especially intangible assets. Thus, intangible resources are strategic assets to
create SCA (Sustainable Competitive Advantage) because it meets the criteria of Valuable,
Rare, Imperfectly imitable, non-substitutable (VRIN) (Barney, 1991).
Overview RBV, by looking at the relationship "business-strategy-performance", referring to
the generic strategies of Porter (Panrell, 2006). The substance of thought is a competitive
advantage can only be obtained if company has the right competitive strategy. According to
Porter (1993), there are three types of competitive strategy, namely: cost leadership,
differentiation and focus. Typology of business strategy is consistent with the resourcebased perspective. VRIN Criteria is a very fundamental aspect to achieve successful
business strategy, especially to give value (Panrell, 2006). Company's strategy is an
important part of company's organizational system that will play an important role in
improving business performance. The basic concept was evidenced from research of Slater
(2006), Sulastri (2006), and Muafi (2008). Research that supports the direct influence
between Porter's competitive strategy and financial performance are Yamin (1999) and
Fenney (2005).
Generally, intangible assets integration that mediated selection strategy to achieve the
SMEs performance are based on the following views. Intangible assets use theory of
Resources Based Value (RBV). The assumption is every organization/company is a collection
of unique resources and capabilities that becoming basis to determine strategy and main
source of company in generating returns (Rumelt, 1984). Wernefelt (1984) and Barney
(1991) states that companies achieve a competitive advantage by leveraging the unique
resources and strategies.
Research on SMEs using strategies option based on theory Porter. The theory proposes that
issue of entrepreneurship (Small and Medium Enterprises/SME) should be seen as a product
of company to create value (Slater, 2006). Pribadi & Kanai (2011) suggests a direct link of
internal and external factors on company performance through corporate strategy.
Purwohandoko (2009) use a competitive strategy as a mediating variable (low cost
leadership, differentiation and focus). The analysis showed that the larger the scale, the
more powerful internal resources of owned portfolio. The better carrying out of market
orientation, the higher the achievement. Selection and implementation of company strategy
was differ depending on the scale of its business.
The study focused on intangible assets (human capital and organizational capital) was
Muchtolifah (2008), explains that company's resource strategy derived from human
resources (human capital). Human resources, both formal education as well as knowledge
55
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
and skills, affects the management of its business. Subsequent studies by Sampurno (2010)
states that alignment of Human Resources (HR) and business strategies have an influence on
financial performance.
Edelman's research (2002) shows the resource (human capital and organizational capital)
and strategy partially had no effect on performance. Significant influence resources on
performance mediated by strategy. Research conducted by Husnah et al. (2013) showed
that intangible resources (human capital and relational capital) can not directly affect
financial performance, competitive strategy mediation was needed. Furthermore, intangible
resources (organizational capital) have a greater impact on financial performance when
through the competitive strategy selection. Other research supports that intangible element
of assets (human capital, organizational capital and relational capital) had no effect (low
impact) on performance when not mediated by Porter's competitive strategy (Hitt et al.,
2001; O'Regan & Ghobadian, 2004; Finney et al., 2005; Amoako-Gympah, 2008; and Kong et
al., 2009).
From above explanation, it can be interpreted that resource that met VRIN criteria by using
RBV concept will be able to obtain performance/SCA, if the resources form basis for
selecting the right strategy, so that concept individually describe the relationship between
variables. The relationship between variables of Intangible assets, competitive strategy and
financial performance, where competitive strategy becomes a mediating variable, described
as follows:
Intangible Asset:
 Human Capital
 Organizational
Capital
 Relational Capital
Competitive
Strategy:
 Low cost leadership
 Differentiation
 Focus
Financial
Performance
 Sales
 Profitability
 Productivity
Figure 5. Competitive Strategies mediate Intangible Assets and Financial Performance of
SMEs
Sources: Result of Concept and Empirical Development
4. Conclusion
Conformity strategy with resources owned are important for company performance
improvement. Internal Resource owned and controlled by the corporation is used as a base
in formulation and implementation the strategies to achieve optimal business performance.
In addition, company's survival or advantage depend on internal resources, as well as what
strategies are chosen to empower those resources so they can respond to opportunities and
challenges of the external environment. Financial performance is influenced by intangible
assets, resource qualification and also mediated by right selection of competitive strategy.
Integration of intangible assets, competitive strategy and company financial performance
become one solution in globalization phenomenon, especially in SMEs sectors. This is
expected to provide useful information to stakeholders. The integration is based on concept
56
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
of RBV, combined with the related theories of financial management and management
strategy, and based on the results of empirical research.
References
Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Acquaah, M. (2008). Manufacturing strategy, competitive strategy
and firm performance: An empirical study in a developing economy enviroment.
International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 575-592.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantange. Management
Scince, 17, 99-120.
Bridoux, F. (2004). A resources-base approach to performance and competition: an overview
of the connection between resources and competition. Luvain, Belgium: Institut et
de Gestion, University Catholique de Louvain.
Choo, C.W., & Bontis, N. (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and
organizational knowledge. New York: Oxpord University Press.
Daum, J.H. (2005). Intangible assets-based enterprise management – a practical approach.
This paper has been presented at the 2005 PMA IC Symposium, Stern School of
Business, New York University, NYC/USA. [On-line] Available at
http://www.juergendaum.com/news/01_15_2006.htm
David, F.R. (2011). Strategic manajemen, 12th ed Sunardi, D. (penerjemah). Manajemen
strategis. Konsep. Edisi 12, Buku 1. Jakarta: Salemba empat.
Demediuk, P. (2002). Intellectual capital reporting: New accounting for the new economy.
Asian Academy of management Journal, 7 (7), 57-74.
Edelman, L.F., C.G. Brush, & T. Manolova. (April 2002). The mediating role of strategy on
small firm performance. Working Paper, 2004-03.
Edvinsson & Malone. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by
finding brainpower. New York: HarperCollins.
Fahy, J., & Smithee, A. (1999). Strategic markering and the resouces based view of the firm.
Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10 [On-line] Available at
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/fahy10-1999.pdf.
Finney, R.Z & Lueg, J.E. (2007). Market pioners, late movers, and the Resources-Based View
(RBV): A conceptual model. Journal of Business Reseach, JBR-06526, 8.
Finney, R.Z., Cambell, N.D., & Powell, C.M. (2005). Strategies and resources: Pathways to
success?. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1721-1729.
Foss, N, J. (1997). Resources based perspective: An assessment and diagnosis of problems.
DRUID Working Paper, 97 (1) [On-line] available at htpp://www.druid.co.id.
Grant, R.M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis, 7th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Haanes, K., & B., Lowendahl. (1997). The unit of activity: Towards an in alternative to
theories of the firm. In Thomas, H. (Ed), Strategy, structure and style.
Compenhagen: Wiley.
57
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Hitt, M.A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects of
human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A
resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 13-28.
Hitt, M.A., R.D., Ireland & R.E., Hoskisson. (1997). Strategic management: Competitiveness
and globalization. Armand Adiyanto (penerjemah) Manajemen strategis:
Menyongsong era persaingan dan globalisasi. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Hitt , M.A,. R.D., Ireland & R.E., Hoskisson. (2011). Strategic management: Competitiveness
and globalization: Concepts. Ninth Edition. USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Ho, G.T.S. & Choy, K.L. (2010). An examination of strategies under the financial tsunami.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110 (9), 1319-1336.
Husnah, B. Subroto., S. Aisjah., & Djumahir. (2013). Intangible asset, competitive strategy
and financial performance: Study on rattan SMEs In Palu city of Central Sulawesi
(Indonesia). International Organization of Scientific Research-Journal of Business
Management (IOSR-JBM), 7(4), 14-27.
Hussi, T. (2004). Reconfiguring knowledge management-combining intelectual capital,
intangible asset & knowledge creation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8 (2),
36-52.
Kong, E., & Thomson .S.B. (2009). An intellectual capital perspective of human resource
strategies and practices. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7, 356–364.
Kuncoro, M. (2005). Strategi bagaimana meraih keunggulan kompetitif. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Leitner , K. (2001). Intangible resources and firm performance: Empirical evidence from
Austrian SMEs. Paper prepared for the 16th Nordic Academy of Management
Meeting Uppsala 16th – 18th August.
Lev, B., & Gu, F. (2001). Intangible assets, measurement, driver, usefullness. Boston
University and New York University, Respectively [On-line] Available at
www.brookings.edu, http://207.87.9.12./html/charts/99FEseei-2.html.
Muafi. (2008). Pengaruh derajat kesesuaian orientasi strategi, Lingkungan eksternal,struktur
saluran ekspor, budaya organisasi dan kinerja ekspor. Jurnal Manajemen dan
Kewirausahaan, 10 (2), 153-162.
Muchtolifah. (2008). Pengaruh sumber daya manusia, orientasi pasar, orientasi
kewirausahaan terhadap strategi bersaing dan kinerja rumah sakit. Disertasi,
Program Doktor Ilmu Manajemen, Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Ekonomi
Universitas Brawijaya.
Mulyadi. & Supriyono, R.A. (2001). Akuntansi manajemen 3, Proses pengendalian
manajemen. Yogyakarta: BPFE.
O’Regan, N., & Ghobadian, A. (2004). The Importance of capabilities for strategic direction
and performance. Management Decition. 42 (2), 292-312.
Panrell. J.A. (2006). Generic strategies after two decades: A reconceptualization of
competitive strategy. Management Decision, 44 (8),1139-1154.
58
International Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences
Vol. 3, No.3; March 2013
Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of compotitive advantage: A resources based-view.
Strategic Management Journal, 14 (3), 179-191.
Pierre, J.S. (2011). Intangible assets and performance analysis on manufacturing SMEs.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12 (2), 202-223.
Porter, M.E. (1993). Strategi bersaing. Tehnik menganalisis industri dan pesaing. Jakarta:
Erlangga.
Pribadi , H., & Kanai, K. (2011). Examining a exploring Indonesia small and medium
enterprise performance: An empirical study. Asian Journal of Business
Management, 3 (2), 98-107.
Purnomosidhi, B. (2006). Praktik pengungkapan modal intelektual pada perusahaan publik
di BEJ. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Indonesia, 9 (1), 1-20.
Purwohandoko. (2009). Integrasi sumberdaya internal dan orientasi pasar sebagai basis
strategi bersaing pada Perusahaan Air Minum Dalam Kemasan (AMDK) di Jawa
Timur. Disertasi, Program Doktor Ilmu Manajemen, Program Pascasarjana Fakultas
Ekonomi Universitas Brawijaya.
Roos, G., dan J. Roos. (1997). Measuring your company’s intellectual performance. Long
Range Planning, 30 (3), 325.
Rumelt, R., (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. Lamp (Ed.), Competitive
strategic management: 556-570. Englewood Cliffts, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sampurno. (2010). Manajemen strategik: Menciptakan keunggulan bersaing yang
berkelanjutan. Yogyakarta: UGM.
Sharabati, A.A., Shawqi, N.J., & Bontis, N. (2010). Intellectual capital and business
performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan. Management Decision, 48 (1),
105-131.
Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M., & Hult, G.T. (2006). Research notes and commentaries the
moderating influence of strategy formation capability – performance relationship.
Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1221-1231.
Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intelectual capital: The new wealth of organizations.
Doubleday/Currency,
New
York
[On-line]
Available
at
http://www.intellectualcapital.com.
Sulastri. (2006). Sebuah Pengembangan model hipotesis pengaruh aset strategis dan
lingkungan terhadap pilihan strategi diversivikasi. Jurnal Manajemen & Bisnis, 4 (7).
Sveiby, K.E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge
based asset. San Fransisco, CA: Barrets Koehler.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5,
171-180.
Wheelen, L.T., & Hunger, J.D. (2001). Manajemen strategis. Yogyakarta: Andi.
Yamin, S., Gunasekaran, A., & Mavondo, F.T. (1999). Relationship between generic
strategies, competitive advantage and organizational performance: an empirical
analysis. Technovation, 19, 507-518.
59