Talk:Core competency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.
The citation is in: William Dunk (April 29, 2005). "You Can't Step in the Same River Twice While Seeking To Develop Meaningful Companies". Local Tech Wire. |
user:Cimon avaro, I can't help but wonder why you create links for words like battery, flash light and coffee percolators. These concepts are incidental to the topic under discussion. Will the reader really benefit from a definition of "flash light"? I don't know the Wikipedia policy on this, but it seems to me, if we start linking all the ancilory words, it will distract from the message of the article. What are your thought on this?
Hmm. My thougts are that you are probably right. But I am not active in setting policy, and will not be if I can avoid it. I am currently putting free links everywhere I can. Maybe this is wrong, but I don't see any actual harm. Just correct my misdeeds if you consider them such, or bring the matter up to more general discussion. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 07:37 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I like lots of links. I say put them in wherever the linked word refers to the same thing as the article. As long as it's obvious to the reader what is going to happen if they click the link, I think it's generally okay. Also, links add emphasis, similar to bolding, so some discretion is needed to keep the text readable. -- Tim Starling 07:44 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It is the fact that, as you say, "these links add emphasis", that bothers me. In an article on marketing theory you no more want links to "flashlight" than you do to "dog" or "cat" or even "the". These are not substantive words, not directly relevent to the article, and their added emphasis is a distraction. That is my 2 cents worth.
I think this is also a term used in education. Do we have any teachers here? Rmhermen 19:21, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with two articles on this topic
We currently have two articles on the same topic, Core competence and Core competency.
So, I'm putting one as a redirect to the other. I've chosen Core competency as the one to keep because:
- it's a lot older
- to me it reads better
But, I'll try and incorporate some of the text from Core competence into Core competency.
Below is the text of Core competence. --257.47b.9½.-19 21:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
--begins
The term core competence/competencies was originally introduced by C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel, who suggested that "core competencies are the collective learning in the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies". From their point of view the core competencies are the foundation from which competitive advantage can be created. In other words, core competencies can be seen as the things that companies do very well. To take an example from the automotive industry, it has been claimed that Volvo’s core competence is safety.
According to Prahalad and Hamel a core competence has three characteristics:
- it provides potential access to a wide variety of markets,
- it increases perceived customer benefits and
- it is hard for competitors to imitate.
Ever since Prahalad and Hamel introduced the term in the 1990’s many researchers have tried to highlight and further illuminate the meaning of core competence. According to Leonard-Barton, D. “Capabilities are considered core if they differentiate a company strategically”. On the other hand Galunic and Rodan (1998) argue that “a core competence differentiates not only between firms but also inside a firm it differentiates amongst several competencies. In other words, a core competency guides a firm recombining its competencies in response to demands from the environment” . However, there are some much more complex explanations and definitions of core competence. This is how Banarjee P. explains it:
Resources are very often divided into two types:
- tangible resources: finance, manpower, IT equipment etc.
- intangible resources: knowledge, reputation, goodwill etc.
Generation of a resource happens very often as a result of viewing an already existing resource from a new perspective, called resource recombination. In other words, you discover that this resource can be used in other settings and contexts than it previously has been used for. When the resource becomes multifunctional, then the efficiency of the firm increases as well. Recombining two or more resources in order to “generate” a new one is defined as simple competence. The main reason why firms generate new resources is to adapt to constantly changing market environment. Competence on recombination has been referred to as an architectural resource, which is of the second order. Finally, the third order is what is called a core competence. “A core competence then is about logical rules helping recombine the second-order architectural knowledge on simple competencies. A core competence is acquired through acts of learning on the success and failures of recombinations of second-order competencies”.
Most researchers agree that core competencies are the fundamental strengths of a firm, and can provide sustainable competitive advantage.
[edit] Further reading
- Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review. pp. 79–91.
- Galunic, D.C. and Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal 19. p. 1193-1201.
--ends
