I argue that capabilities and barriers to entry are, in certain circumstances, interconnected in such a way that sacrificing one of them can lead to the subsequent vulnerability or erosion of another capability or barrier to entry. I illustrate this through a study of the US bicycle market in the 1980's in general, and Schwinn Corporation and Giant Manufacturing in particular, arguing that both the barriers to entry and the firm capabilities were interrelated. A specific set of decisions by Schwinn had broad and unanticipated effects that went beyond the capacity they explicitly relinquished. In this case manufacturing and distribution were tightly linked in such a way that without some form of tight link between them successful incremental innovation became difficult. Seemingly unrelated capabilities and strengths become mutually reinforcing or interconnected. Instead of being able to choose to add a single capability, or choose to discard one, companies may instead be choosing between sets, groups of interlinked, or patterned capabilities. A seemingly small change may require a major reorganization of other core capabilities that its ostensible status belies.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Article provided by University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper in its journal Managing Global Transitions.
Find related papers by JEL classification: F02 - International Economics - - General - - - International Economic Order; Noneconomic International Organizations;; Economic Integration and Globalization: General F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Country and Industry Studies of Trade