In the context of the revision of the competitive advantage basis, a turning point has been marked by the Resource Based View (RBV) (Barney, 2001; Lippman, and Rumelt, 2003) which has the fundamental merit of recognizing the role of subjectivity in the view of the firm, overcoming the common objective view implicitly stated in the traditional approach. The limits of the traditional model of
... [Show full abstract] competitive analysis derive, indeed, from the perspective of analysis, which, influenced by the focus on industries, disregards the fundamental internal determinants of firm-specific knowledge, implicitly assuming the mobility of knowledge resources (Siano, 2001). What starts with the RBV, is a review of the competitive model, which, however, still suffers from some basic limits which require to be faced through a deeper rethinking of the view of the firm and of its dynamics. The methodology advances sharply with the competitive analysis perspective, stating the importance of the uniqueness of firm-specific factors that allow an asymmetric allocation of non-transferable and non-replicable resources, and, therefore, the inimitability and * By Sergio Barile and Marialuisa Saviano 40 Chapter II sustainability of the competitive advantage. Effects of path dependency are associated with conditions of causal ambiguity that avoid that potential imitator companies could identify the sources of competitive advantage. The inability to read, in a deterministic way, the relationship between resources and competitive advantage is attributed to the presence of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966): practical knowledge embedded in the structural components of the firm, as a result of experience based learning processes (learning by doing). It is in tacit knowledge the foundation of the obstacle to mobility, which is instead possible in the case of codified knowledge, i.e. information, which is abstract and de-contextualized. Therefore, competitive advantage finds new sources in the processes of intra-and inter-organizational learning. This view stimulates a research stream on learning and knowledge that derives its most innovative contributions from the Eastern culture, a culture 'of opposites', somehow breaking with the rationality of Western culture. Creativity, chaos, contradiction, ambiguity become the main ingredients of a theory of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka, and Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, new ideas emerge that fuel the process of revision of the theory, which directs to a perspective change (Khun, 1962), leading to a profound rethinking of the way of conceiving the firm. Capturing this change in perspective, with the aim of building and reinforcing the methodological foundations of the economic and business discipline, a more general way to view organizations has been developed in the last decades, rooted in systems thinking (von Bertalanffy, 1967) and built upon an updated version of the Stafford Beer's Viable System Model (Beer, 1972). This research stream has led to the development of the Viable Systems Approach (VSA) to the study and governance of economic and social organizations (Barile, 2000, 2008, 2009a; Golinelli, 2000, 2010; Various Authors, 2011; Barile, Pels, Polese, and Saviano, 2012). 2.2. The relevance of the dynamic capabilities: a VSA perspective