Best practices, performance advantage and trade-offs: new insights from frontier analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are still important theoretical and empirical gaps in understanding the role of best practices (BPs), such as quality management, lean and new product development, in generating firm’s performance advantage and overcoming trade-offs across distinct performance dimensions. We examine these issues through the perspective of performance frontiers, integrating in novel ways the resource-based theory with the emergent practice-based view. Hypotheses on relationships between BPs, performance advantage, and trade-offs are developed and tested with stationary and longitudinal (recall) data from a global survey of manufacturing firms. We use data envelopment analysis, which overcomes limitations of mainstream methods based on central tendency. Our findings support the view that BPs may serve as a source of enduring competitive advantage, based on their ability to lead to a heterogeneous range of dominant and difficult-to-imitate competitive positions. The study provides new insights on contemporary debates about the role of BPs in generating performance advantage and how practitioners can sustain internal support and extract benefits from them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".