Vol. 14 No. 3 (2026)
September 2026

Articles

Development routes of resource and capability configurations in small and medium-sized enterprises

Published 2026-09-30

  • András Rideg
    • ,
  • Gábor Márkus

András Rideg
University of Pécs

Gábor Márkus
University of Pécs

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to identify and analyse the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in an international context by classifying 785 firms from eight countries into configurations based on performance across ten resource and capability pillars, linking configurations to competitiveness, and analytically inferring plausible, path-dependent development routes between them.

Research Design & Methods: We drew on the Global Competitiveness Project (GCP) dataset. We collected data between 2016 and 2020 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Mexico, and Spain through structured face-to-face interviews with SME owners or top executives. We classified firms into four configurations (Balanced, Core Competence, Harmonised, Bottleneck) based on skewness and relative variance across the ten pillars, quantified using GCP interview-based measures. We applied one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and binary logistic regression models to assess configuration differences in competitiveness and to support inferences about potential development routes.

Findings: The analysis revealed statistically significant differences in competitiveness across configurations: Harmonised firms displayed the highest competitiveness, whereas Balanced firms exhibited the lowest. The models suggest two main development logics. Balanced firms may reduce pillar dispersion and strengthen Technology, Decision-making, Marketing, and Networks to move towards a Harmonised configuration, or they may prioritise Technology (and, in some cases, Decision-making and Human Capital) in ways that generate a Bottleneck configuration. Core Competence firms may move towards Bottleneck by further reinforcing Technology, or towards Harmonised by broadening and aligning key pillars. However, some transitions appear economically unattractive, as the costs of incremental configuration change may outweigh competitiveness gains.

Implications & Recommendations: SME development strategies should strengthen configuration-specific pillars. Managers can use the identified configurations to diagnose their position and prioritise targeted improvements. Policymakers and practitioners should support SMEs in recognising their configuration and implementing focused interventions that improve the effectiveness of resource and capability deployment.

Contribution & Value Added: The study adds to resource-based view (RBV) and configuration-based research on SME competitiveness by linking an established competitiveness index to a four-type configuration scheme, including a Balanced configuration. It proposes a systematic, configuration-based framework for assessing how specific pillars shape competitiveness and for analytically inferring non-linear development routes between configurations, thereby refining GCP-related evidence and offering actionable guidance for SMEs.

Keywords

resource-based view (RBV), SME competitiveness, configurations, business models, strategic development

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

András Rideg

Associate Professor and Researcher at the Department of Management Science, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Pécs. His research interests include RBV-based SME competitiveness and SME strategy.

Gábor Márkus

Assistant Professor and Researcher at the Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Pécs. His research interests include SME competitiveness, financial performance and international accounting standards.

References

  1. Alonso-Ubieta, S., Mora-Esquivel, R., & Leiva, J.C. (2021). The competitive efficiency of Costa Rican small and medium-sized businesses: A data envelopment analysis approach. Competitiveness Review, 31(3), 420-438. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2019-0142
  2. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
  3. Barney, J.B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
  4. Barney, J.B., Ketchen Jr, D.J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: revitalization or decline?. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299-1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310391805
  5. Barney, J.B., Ketchen Jr, D.J., & Wright, M. (2021). Bold voices and new opportunities: An expanded research agenda for the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1677-1683. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211014276
  6. Bayon, M., & Aguilera, P. (2021). Managerial perceptions of the strategic relevance of resources and capabilities and its configuration for firm competitiveness: An exploratory study. Competitiveness Review, 31(3), 462-476. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2020-0023
  7. Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Bhamra, T. (2010). Competence understanding and use in SMEs: A UK manufacturing perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 48(18), 2729-2743. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207541003738873
  8. Dess, G.G., & Davis, P.S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 467-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/256040
  9. Douglas, T.J., & Ryman, J.A. (2003). Understanding competitive advantage in the general hospital industry: Evaluating strategic competencies. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.301
  10. Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises: A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy, 40(5), 739-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.003
  11. Global Competitiveness Project. (n.d.). Global Competitiveness Project (GCP). Retrieved from https://www.sme-gcp.org on December 17, 2024.
  12. Hagen, B., Zucchella, A., Larimo, J., & Dimitratos, P. (2017). A taxonomy of strategic postures of international SMEs. European Management Review, 14(3), 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12109
  13. Hambrick, D.C. (1983). High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 687-707. https://doi.org/10.2307/255916
  14. Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D.J., & Winter, S.G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell.
  15. Horváth, K., & Lafuente, E. (2021). A non-parametric analysis of the effect of the configuration of competitive pillars on competitive efficiency. Competitiveness Review, 31(3), 379-396. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2019-0143
  16. Irwin, J.G., Hoffman, J.J., & Lamont, B.T. (1998). The effect of the acquisition of technological innovations on organizational performance: A resource-based view. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 25-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(97)00028-3
  17. Kallmuenzer, A., Kraus, S., Peters, M., Steiner, J., & Cheng, C.-F. (2019). Entrepreneurship in tourism firms: A mixed-methods analysis of performance driver configurations. Tourism Management, 74, 319-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.002
  18. Kim, S.K., & Min, S. (2015). Business model innovation performance: When does adding a new business model benefit an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 34-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1193
  19. Klang, D., Wallnöfer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2014). The business model paradox: A systematic review and exploration of antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 454-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12030
  20. Kraus, S., Kauranen, I., & Henning Reschke, C. (2011). Identification of domains for a new conceptual model of strategic entrepreneurship using the configuration approach. Management Research Review, 34(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111096478
  21. Lafuente, E., Szerb, L., & Rideg, A. (2020a). A system dynamics approach for assessing SMEs’ competitiveness. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(4), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2019-0204
  22. Lafuente, E., Leiva, J.C., Moreno-Gómez, J., & Szerb, L. (2020b). A nonparametric analysis of competitiveness efficiency: The relevance of firm size and the configuration of competitive pillars. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 23(3), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420941440
  23. Lederer, M., Schott, P., Huber, S., & Kurz, M. (2013). Strategic business process analysis: A procedure model to align business strategy with business process analysis methods. In H. Fischer & J. Schneeberger (Eds.), S-BPM ONE-Running Processes (pp. 247-263). Springer.
  24. Lorentz, H., Hilmola, O.-P., Malmsten, J., & Srai, J.S. (2016). Cluster analysis application for understanding SME manufacturing strategies. Expert Systems with Applications, 66, 176-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.09.016
  25. Luo, Y., & Child, J. (2015). A composition-based view of firm growth. Management and Organization Review, 11(3), 379-411. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2015.29
  26. McGrath, R.G. (2013). Transient advantage. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 62-70. https://hbr.org/2013/06/transient-advantage
  27. Meyer, A.D., Tsui, A.S., & Hinings, C.R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175-1195. https://doi.org/10.2307/256809
  28. Miller, C.C., Washburn, N.T., & Glick, W.H. (2013). Perspective – The myth of firm performance. Organization Science, 24(3), 948-964. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0762
  29. Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-792. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770
  30. Miller, D. (1986). Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070305
  31. Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 505-512. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199607)17:7<505::AID-SMJ852>3.0.CO;2-I
  32. Miller, D., & Whitney, J.O. (1999). Beyond strategy: Configuration as a pillar of competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 42(3), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(99)80016-0
  33. Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S., Becker, M.C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484-1508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01064.x
  34. Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
  35. Pfeifer, S., Peterka, S.O., & Stanić, M. (2017). Business models of micro businesses: Empirical evidence from creative industries. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 22(Special issue), 1-19. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/190493 on November 30, 2024.
  36. Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
  37. Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-core-competence-of-the-corporation on November 30, 2024.
  38. Priem, R.L., & Butler, J.E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/259392
  39. Raymond, L., St-Pierre, J., Fabi, B., & Lacoursière, R. (2010). Strategic capabilities for the growth of manufacturing SMEs: A configurational perspective. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946710001476
  40. Rugman, A.M., & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 769-780. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.240
  41. Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310371691
  42. Sirmon, D.G., & Hitt, M.A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(12), 1375-1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.791
  43. Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Arregle, J.-L., & Campbell, J.T. (2010). The dynamic interplay of capability strengths and weaknesses: Investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1386-1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.893
  44. Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., & Gilbert, B.A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695
  45. Sohl, T., Vroom, G., & McCann, B.T. (2020). Business model diversification and firm performance: A demand-side perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(2), 198-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1342
  46. Szerb, L., & Hornyák, M. (2016). Examining the competitiveness of Hungarian SMEs in a regional comparison. In I. Lengyel & B. Nagy (Eds.), Competitiveness of regions, smart specialization, and reindustrialization (pp. 307-325). JATEPress.
  47. Szerb, L., Csapi, V., Deutsch, N., Hornyák, M., Horváth, Á., Kruzslicz, F., … Ulbert, J. (2014). How competitive are Hungarian SMEs? A measurement and comprehensive analysis of the competitiveness of Hungarian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at the individual and firm levels. Marketing and Management, 48(Special issue), 3-21.
  48. Teece, D.J. (2010). Business models, business strategy, and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
  49. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.