Impact of firm characteristics on the value of resources for Malaysian private housing developers

Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction Volume 12, Number 2, pp95 - 105, August 2007

Printed in Great Britain

Impact of fi rm characteristics on the value of resources for Malaysian private housing developers

ABUL-RASHID ABDUL-AZIZ, HO SHIEW YI and MASTURA JAAFARSchool of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden Penang, Malaysia

Summary• Using the resource-based view, a study was conducted to identify re-sources required to successfully compete in the Malaysian housing develop-ment industry. Data was collected using postal questionnaires and interviews. • From the statistical tests done on the data, it was found that variation in cer-tain fi rm-characteristics infl uenced the value the respondents attached to cer-tain resources. In addition, the more housing segments the developers oper-ated, the more emphasis are given to organisational strategy and policies. There is an inverted-U relationship between product diversifi cation and trade se-crets and innovation, with the maximum value at four housing segments. • The housing developers that practise strategic management emphasised signifi -cantly more on management expertise and experience than those that did not. No variation in the value attached to resources was found when the other two fi rm characteristics, i.e. legal status and geographical diversifi cation, were examined.• Given the small number of companies that participated in the study, the results should be treated with circumspect. What the study pro-vided though are grounds for more in-depth study to be conducted.

Keywords: product diversifi cation, housing developers, fi rm characterisitics, Malaysia

Introduction

The housing development industry in Malaysia has undergone signifi cant changes ever since the country gained independence in 1957. The number of hous-ing developers has increased over the years thereby fostering healthy competition in the industry. Yet, to date, studies on the stakeholders involved in the Ma-laysian housing sector have been limited. Studies on the Malaysian housing industry have tended to focus on issues such as policy (Agus, 2002), housing sup-ply (Malpezzi and Mayo, 1997), regulative frame-work (Bertaud and Malpezzi, 2001), housing design (Abdul-Rahman et al., 1999; Al-Obaidi and Woods, 2006), house-buyers (Lee and Ng, 1996) and such like. Worldwide, the scenario is the same (Van Vliet, 2003). By applying the resource-based view (RVB), a study was conducted on the Malaysian speculative hous-ing development industry to investigate the valuable resources required to succeed. Valuable resources are defi ned as resources that enable fi rms to exploit op-portunities as well as to neutralise threats in the market

© Glasgow Caledonian University

environment (Barney, 1991; 1995; 2002). The RBV fo-cuses on a fi rm’s internal resources, thereby providing insight into a fi rm’s competitiveness (McKiernan, 1997). There are models that focus on external factors which can equally affect the fi rm’s competitiveness, but these factors are beyond the fi rm’s control (Morash and Lynch, 2002). The RBV has been used to examine several in-dustries such as manufacturing (Hitt et al., 1982; Kaleka, 2002), automotive (Snow and Hrebeniak, 1980; Fahy, 2002), bearing (Collis, 1991), information technology (Prahaled and Hamel, 1990) and audit (Maijoor and van Witteloostujin, 1996), but not in housing development. The dearth of RBV research on the housing indus-try was behind the inspiration to conduct the present study. Aaker (1989) and Carmeli (2004) examined the real estate sector using the RBV, but then in combina-tion with other industries. Focusing on a single industry eliminates verifying environmental factors between dif-ferent industries. According to Rouse and Daellenbach (1999), multi-industry studies do not help to disentagle the key factors that provide sustainable competitive ad-vantages.

© GCU Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 12 (2)

96 A. Abdul-Aziz, H. Shiew Yi and M. Jaafar

In this paper, the resources as scored by the respond-ents are cross-examined against four fi rm characteris-tics, i.e. legal status, product diversifi cation, geographi-cal diversifi cation and strategic planning practice. For this, statistical analysis was mainly relied upon in ad-dition with information compiled from interviews with the stakeholders. This initiative was premised on Bar-ney’s argument (1995) that resources can be valuable in different ways for different fi rms, even those in the same industry. Again, this cross-examination of resourc-es against fi rm characteristics have been conducted in other industries (e.g. Klumpes, 2005; Baldwin and Gu, 2004, etc.), but not in housing development. The paper is structured as follows; the next section briefl y discusses the importance of the housing sector and the role played by the private sector in Malaysia’s housing provision, followed by a short description of the resource-based view and its development path ever since the 1950s. Subsequently, the methodology adopt-ed in this study is explained, followed by the presenta-tion and discussions of the fi ndings.

Housing development in Malaysia

The housing sector can play an important role in the eco-nomic as well as social development of a nation (Ong and Lenard, 2002; Crist, 2004). Housing construction provides business opportunities to professional consult-ants, contractors and sub-contractors, bankers, building material manufacturers and many others. In Malaysia, housing supports 142 related industries (Usilappan, 2005). The industry also provides employment opportu-nities for the skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled labourers (Seiders, 2004). Houses provide shelter, privacy, secu-rity and comfort to the occupants (Maclennan and Yong, 1996; Imrie, 2004). Investment in housing is often one of the single largest expenditure for an individual (Reed, 2001; Lea, 2005). Housing is the anchor

for social stability (Sheng, 1998). In addition, good quality housing improves the standard of living of the residents (Johnson, 2004; Gonzales, 2005). In Malaysia, the private sector has been the prin-cipal player since the late 1950s (Lim, 1997; Shuid, 2004). Traditionally, focussing on medium- and high-cost housing, they have subsequently been made to also provide low-cost (since the 1970s) and low-medium-cost (since the 1990s) as well. Except for the Fourth and Fifth Malaysia Plan periods, during which time the country suffered poor economic climate, the private sector had exceeded the targets set by the government by a wide margin (see Table 1). The increase in private sector housing delivery had in part been helped by the increase in the number of housing developers (Yap, 1991), currently numbering approximately 2,000 (Fernandez, 2005). With such numbers, competition among the housing developers has inevitable heated up. Those unable to perform are forced to exit from the industry, only to be replaced by new entrants drawn by the prospects of making good returns.

The resource-based view (RBV)

The core concept of the resource-based view is that a fi rm’s key resources are the main source of sustainable competitive advantage that would lead to its superior performance in the marketplace. It is an inside-out ap-proach of studying a fi rm’s competitiveness that puts emphasis on the fi rm’s internal strengths and weak-nesses (McKiernan, 1997; Spanos and Lioukas, 2001; Morash and Lynch, 2002). Of course resource capacity only partly accounts for a company’s ability to com-pete. The positioning school of thought (also common-ly referred to as the environmental school of thought) stresses on external market opportunities (Morash and Lynch, 2002). This outside-in approach links the com-

Units completed Contribution of private sectorPeriod of Malaysia Units completed as a percentage of as a percentage of entire newfi ve year plan by private sector government target housing stockSecond (1971-1975) 64 862 - 7.3Third (1976-1980) 199 490 199.5 55.0Fourth (1981-1985) 104 800 30.0 51.3Fifth (1986-1990) 196 319 36.4 96.3Sixth (1991-1995) 551 613 142.8 98.0Seventh (1996-2000) 724 153 130.5 98.1Eighth (2001-2005) 632 223 218.8 96.5Sources: Malaysia (1976; 1981; 1986; 1991; 1996; 2001; 2006).

Table 1: Units of houses completed by the private developers vis-a-vis government targets


Impact of fi rm characteristics on the value of resources for Malaysian private housing developers 97

petitive strategy to the fi rm’s environment whereas the inside-out approach redirects attention to the fi rm’s capital and postulates that performance is ultimately a return to unique assets owned and controlled by the fi rm. During the early 1990s, there was a major swing in concentration in competitive advantage studies from the outside-in approach of positioning school of thought to inside-out approach of the resource-based view. Criticism of the former include its neglect of the role of internal decision-making (Mol, 2003) and the diffi culty to look outward for direction when making strategic decisions under dynamic and evolving market place (Beard and Sumner, 2004). Hence the application of the RBV in this study. The footprint of the RBV can be found in early man-agement works in the late 1950s, such as on distinctive competence (Selznick, 1957), heterogeneity of fi rm’s internal resources (Penrose, 1959) and the importance of fi rm’s resources in corporate strategy (Ansoff, 1965; Andrews, 1971). During the 1980s, scholars (e.g. Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980; Huff, 1982; Rumelt, 1984; Wern-erfelt, 1984; Hitt and Ireland, 1985; Barney, 1986) de-veloped and defi ned the resource-based concept, and sought to relate resources to sustainable competitive advantage. Research on the RBV further expanded in the 1990s (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Black and Boal, 1994). In the 2000s, the RBV became increasingly ac-cepted by various disciplines of studies, including those relating to diversifi cation (Guillen, 2000), strategic alli-ance (Chen and Chen, 2003), foreign direct investment (Li et al., 2003) and business start-ups (Heirman and Clarysse, 2004). There are ample past studies that have cross-exam-ined resources against fi rm characteristics, but they have mainly focused on industries other than housing devel-opment. This initiative was prompted by observations by past scholars. For example in terms of legal status, public listed companies that perform well in the market have been found to be better able to raise more cash through additional equity offerings than private compa-nies which tend to have a very narrow capital structure based on retaining earnings and loans from the founders and the employees (Hare, 1994; Leitner, 2005). In the UK life insurance industry, Klumpes (2005) observed that the preference of senior management for strategic budgetary planning control is strongly conditioned by the fi rm’s ownership. Beatty and Harris (1999) found that public banks constantly engage in more earnings management than private banks. Geographical diversifi cation also seem to have an impact on the required resources. In the banking indus

try, Demsetz and Strahan (1997) and Rose (1995) found that operating throughout the country can reduce risks exposure whereas Liang and Rhoades (1988) found the opposite to be the case. Studies (e.g. Prodham and Har-ris, 1989; Chan et al., 1993) on risks and geographical diversifi cation have been done in the context of inter-nationalisation of fi rms. Exporting companies for ex-ample has been found to invest more on research and development (R&D) and staff training (Baldwin and Gu, 2004). Closer to the present subject matter, Wol-verton et al. (1998) found that intra-city diversifi cation can reduce risks in real estate investment. Past studies have also examined on product diversi-fi cation Gary (2005) suggests that without managerial policies, diversifi cation can negatively impact fi rm per-formance, even when substantial synergy opportunities exist. Thackray (1982) discovered that much criticism has been levelled at diversifi ed businesses because of problems of long-range planning and control associated with bigness. When the scale and breadth of diversifi ca-tion exceeds the competence of the corporate manage-ments, collective failure to manage product diversifi -cation adequately becomes the real cause of dilemma in diversifi cation. Product diversifi cation has also been examined in the context of innovation. The view by Taylor and Levitt (2005) that the residential building industry is a laggard in adopting new products and processes is contested by Duncan (2002). While Ka-mien and Schwartz (1982) suggest a positive relation-ship between geographical diversifi cation and innova-tion, Doi (1985) and Hoskisson and Hitt (1988) found the opposite to be true. To add further to the debate, Hitt et al. (1997) found that, in terms of innovation as a necessity to remain competitive in the market, overall product diversifi cation effects were found to be close to zero. Finally previous studies have also focused on stra-tegic planning practices. The available literature high-lights the important role of top management in the im-plementation of strategic planning. Rothschild (1980) asserts that the growth of a company will only occur if strategic planning is applied properly with explicit chief executive offi cer commitment and involvement. Ugboro’s study (1991) suggests that top management involvement is crucial to the achievement of strategic plans. Daniel (1992) found that the effectiveness of strategic planning depends on top management’s defi -nition of its expectations from the process including ex-amination of the external factors impinging on a busi-ness environment, determination of specifi c long-term objectives and the development of action plan that fo-



-cuses on the key milestones to be accomplished.

Methodology

All housing developers listed in the directories of the major housing developers trade association in Malay-sia - Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association (REHDA) for Peninsular Malaysia and the Sarawak Housing Developers’ Association (SHDA) – were ap-proached for participation in the research. Sabah Hous-ing and Real Estate Developers’ Association (SHARE-DA) declined to participate in the research. Just as with Fahy (2002) and Kaleka (2002), this study therefore adopted a cross-sectional approach covering all of the players of the industry regardless of their location and background. The adopted approach of getting potential respondents from a reliable register was borrowed from previous resource-based studies of Hall (1992), Kaleka (2002) and Carmeli (2004). Questionnaires were sent by post to the chief executives of all the housing devel-opers registered with REHDA and SHAREDA request-ing them to indicate the value they attached to the listed resources for housing development. Previous resource-based view studies which used questionnaires to collect data were Collis (1991), Hall (1992), Carmelli (2001; 2004) and Fahy (2002). Forty completed questionnaires were returned, 13 of the respondents consented to follow-up face-to-face interviews which were duly conducted. The interview sessions, which were semi-structured in nature, lasted from half an hour to one and a half hours. The questions posed stemmed from the questionnaire responses as well as the ensuing discussions. The low postal questionnaire response rate of 2.4% was forewarned by REHDA’s own research offi cers. It was in anticipation of poor industry receptivity to the research that questionnaires were sent to all the members of REHDA and SHAREDA. No fol-low-up correspondence was done to increase the partici-pation rate due to cost constraint. The low response rate was compensated by the relatively high participation rate of the respondents to the interviews. The resources itemised in the questionnaire were orig-inally based on past empirical resource-based studies of other industries, as advised by Carmeli (2001; 2004) and Kaleka (2002). Only those which consistently ap-peared in past literature were used to ensure content and discriminant validity (Fahy, 2002). Pre-testing of the questionnaire, which was done on three executives, led to the trimming of the list to 14 variables. Respondents were asked to rate the value of the itemised resources to their companies using a fi ve-point Likert scale (1 being

insignifi cant, 2 being little signifi cance, 3 being mod-erately signifi cant, 4 being signifi cant, and 5 being very signifi cant). Past resource-based studies which used scale measurement include Hall (1992), Fahy (2002) and Ka-leka (2002). The postal questionnaire respondents could be regarded to have suffi cient insight on their fi rms’ re-sources pool by virtue of the length of service (the long-est serving was 27 years old) and position (82.5% of the postal respondents were top or mid-level manager). The numerical data were analysed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Descrip-tive statistics (i.e. mean and standard deviation) were used to rank the 14 variables in descending value. To analyse the effects of fi rm-characteristics on the re-spondents’ responses to the value of the resources, independent-samples T-test (between two sub-sam-ple polulations) and one-way ANOVA test (between fi ve sub-sample populations) were done. T-test serves to determine if there is a signifi cant mean difference in a dependent variable between two groups whereas ANOVA test helps to examine the signifi cant mean dif-ferences among more than two groups (Sekaran, 2003). The information obtained from the interviews was used to clarify the quantitative analysis, an approach which was similar to Hall (1992; 1993).

Findings and discussion

Table 2 shows the 14 variables arranged in descend-ing mean values as compiled from the respondents. The discussion on each of the variables is discussed else-where (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2006). In this paper, only the infl uences of fi rm characteristics on the value of vari-ables are explored and discussed. The fi rm character-istics included in the study are legal status (i.e. public listed versus private), geographical diversifi cation (i.e. single or multiple states), product diversifi cation (i.e. one, two, three, four or fi ve housing segments) and stra-tegic planning practice (i.e. present or absent). Statistical test was conducted to determine if the legal status (i.e. public listed and private companies) of the participating companies might have led to variation in response. 5 (i.e. 12.5%) out of the 40 participating com-panies were listed in the local stock market. Table 3 shows that no variation was found in the responses be-tween public listed and private companies. This is de-spite the fact that previous studies (Hare, 1994; Beatty and Harris, 1999; Klumpes, 2005) alluded to the pos-sibility that it might be otherwise. This fi nding is inter-esting as it also shows that the size of the company may not have a bearing on the value of the resources. To

Resources Mean S.D. RankPrime location (land bank and acquisition) 4.38 0.721 1Cash fl ow 4.31 0.710 2Understanding market potentials 4.27 0.804 3Relationship with local authorities 4.24 0.597 4Managerial expertise and experience 4.16 0.866 5Organisation and service reputation 4.14 0.855 6Ability to manage change 4.11 0.809 7Relationship with competent support services parties 4.05 0.664 8Skilled employees 3.92 0.759 9Management tolerance to risks and uncertainties 3.86 0.918 10Organisational strategy and policies 3.78 0.854 11Staff training and development 3.59 1.040 12Trade secrets and project innovation 3.54 1.070 13Part of a larger group 3.14 1.134 14


get listed on the Bursa Malaysia (previously known as the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange), a company needs to meet certain requirements. For housing developers, they are required to possess a minimum land bank of 1,000 acres, have suffi cient on-going property develop-ment projects, and obtain an aggregate after-tax profi t of not less than RM30 million for the fi ve full years (Ting, 2002). To be listed in the local stock market in Malaysia therefore housing developers must be very large in terms of land bank and profi t. The next statistical test was to determine the possible variability in responses between fi rms operating in one state as opposed to those in multi-state. 27 (i.e. 67.5%) of the participating companies operated in only one state as opposed to the rest that had presence on multi-ple states. As with legal status, no signifi cant variation was found between companies that operated in

Table 2: Ranking on value of resources to private housing developers in Malaysia

Resources t-valueManagerial expertise and experience 1.008Management tolerance to risks and uncertainties - 0.308Ability to manage change - 0.367Organisational strategy and policies - 1.161Part of a larger group - 0.212Staff training and development - 0.822Organisation and service reputation - 0.901Trade secrets and project innovation 0.079Skilled employees - 0.649Prime location (land bank and acquisition) - 0.353Understanding market potential 0.053Cash fl ow 0.481Relationship with competent support services parties 0.968Relationship with local authorities - 0.909Remark -

Table 3: Results of independent-samples T-test (Effect of legal status difference)

Note: 1–insignifi cant, 2–little signifi cance, 3–moderately signifi cant, 4–signifi cant, 5–very signifi cant.

single and multiple states (see Table 4). Contrary to what some previous studies (Liang and Rhoades, 1988; Rose, 1995; Demsetz and Strahan, 1997; Baldwin and Gu, 2004, etc.) suggest, this present study did not sta-tistically detect any variation in resources that can be associated with geographical diversifi cation. The third statistical test was on product diversifi -cation. 38.2% of the participating companies operated within a single product segment, 20.6% in two, 20.6% in three, 14.7% in four and 5.9% in fi ve product seg-ments. The statistical tests found two variables to have signifi cance values (both at P <0.10), the fi rst is organi-sational strategy and policies, and the second is trade secrets and project innovation (see Table 5).




Resources t-valueManagerial expertise and experience 0.784Management tolerance to risks and uncertainties 0.464Ability to manage change 0.127Organisational strategy and policies - 1.069Part of a larger group 0.497Staff training and development - 0.625Organisation and service reputation - 0.561Trade secrets and project innovation - 0.492Skilled employees - 0.445Prime location (land bank and acquisition) - 1.206Understanding market potential - 1.211Cash fl ow - 0.659 Relationship with competent support services parties - 0.183Relationship with local authorities - 0.631Remark -

Table 4: Results of independent-samples T-test (effect of geographical coverage difference)

Resources F-valueManagerial expertise and experience 0.991Management tolerance to risks and uncertainties 1.128Ability to manage change 1.495Organisational strategy and policies 2.327 *Part of a larger group 1.782Staff training and development 1.487Organisation and service reputation 1.006Trade secrets and project innovation 2.432 *Skilled employees 0.856Prime location (land bank and acquisition) 0.653Understanding market potential 1.553Cash fl ow 0.931Relationship with competent support services parties 0.194Relationship with local authorities 0.281Remark * P < 0.10

Table 5: Results of one-way ANOVA (Effect of number of housing segments difference)

The statistics suggests that the more the housing seg-ments the participating companies were involved in, the more emphasis they gave to organisational strategy and policies. This result is in concurrence with past studies like Thackay (1982) and Gary (2005). Partici-pating fi rms active in all fi ve housing segments gave a rating of 4.50 for the variable whereas those involved only in a single segment gave a rating of 3.38. Those operating in two, three and four housing segments gave a rating of 3.86, 4.43 and 3.60 respectively. It can be rationalised that for developers experienced in multiple housing segments, the more options they had in execut-ing housing development, the more important organi-sational strategy and policies became. One interviewee whose company had only been involved in one housing segment however cautioned, “You can have strategies and policies all you want, but if the market doesn’t go your way, then you better make sure you know how

to correct them.” In fact a number of companies that were visited indicated that during the most recent mar-ket downturn, their companies were forced to construct more affordable houses and in smaller numbers. Be-cause of the vagaries in external operating environment, fi ve years into the future was the maximum period the participating companies prepared their strategies and policies. The statistics also show that there were differences of perception on trade secrets and innovation with increase in housing segments. Interestingly, the value peaked at four housing segments (i.e. 4.40) and dropped drastical-ly at fi ve housing segments (3.00). The values for one, two and three housing segments were 3.08, 3.86 and 4.00 respectively. Hence there is an inverted-U pattern for trade secrets and innovation as product diversity in-creases. Incidentally as mentioned earlier, the literature points to disagreement between scholars (Kamien and


Schwartz, 1982; Doi, 1985; Hoskisson and Hitt, 1988; Hitt et al., 1997) on the infl uence of product diversifi ca-tion and innovation. One interviewee who operated in two housing seg-ments explained that a developer can be innovative throughout the development process, from selecting site for development, scheming the development project and houses in it, obtaining development approval from au-thorities, setting the selling price, right through to mar-keting and arranging housing loans for buyers. Hence innovation is about the process as well as the product. The same interviewee, together with another whose company only operated in one housing segment, indi-cated however that novel ideas are quickly imitated by rival developers. “Terrace houses have been designed to death, yet we still try,” said the latter. The fourth statistical test was on fi rms that prac-tised strategic planning and those that did not. Strategic planning was practised by just over half (55.0%) of the participating companies whereas 42.5% of them did not. The remaining 2.5% did not provide information on this. Firms with strategic planning had a different perception on the signifi cance of management exper-tise and experience (at P < 0.10) as a valuable resource in comparison to those without strategic planning (see Table 6). Firms with strategic planning (mean = 4.38) put much higher expectation on management expertise and experience in comparison to those which did not (mean = 3.88). This result is in concurrence with pre-vious studies (Rothschild, 1980; Ugboro, 1991; Dan-iel, 1992) that examined the relationship between top management and strategic management practices. One interviewee whose company formulated strategic plans pointed out that strategic planning would not bring the

desired effect if the management does not have the ap-propriate expertise and experience. In putting across his point, he made the analogy of the driver (i.e. the management) who is capable of driving any car (i.e. the strategy) that is given to him. Another interviewee whose company did not practise strategic planning said, “That is why I keep emphasising on top management.” He gave the example that once top management make strategic plans to venture overseas, then the whole com-pany would act accordingly. The upshot of his comment is that only knowledgeable and experienced top manage-ment can set new directions for the company. There were companies which we visited which operated the way they had been operating in the past. Suffi ce to say that these companies did not prepare strategic plans. The top management of these companies can be said to lack the knowledge and exposure to lay down strategic plans to further improve the performance of their companies.

Conclusion

This study found that certain fi rm characteristics have led to variability in the value certain resources provided to their organisations. The fi rm characteristics were prod-uct diversifi cation and strategic planning practice. It was found that the more housing segments the companies op-erated, the more emphasis they placed on organisational strategies and policies. An inverted-U relationship was also found to prevail between product diversifi cation and trade secrets and innovation; that is to say the more the housing segments the companies operated, the more em-phasis they gave to trade secrets and innovation, but only up to four housing segments beyond which the emphasis dipped drastically. The statistical analysis shows that

Resources t-valueManagerial expertise and experience 1.815*Management tolerance to risks and uncertainties 0.299Ability to mange change 1.124Organisational strategy and policies 0.987Part of a larger group - 0.532Staff training and development 0.478Organisation and service reputation 1.654Trade secrets and project innovation - 0.725Skilled employees 0.303Prime location (land bank and acquisition) 0.944Understanding market potential 0.958Cash fl ow 0.415Relationship with competent support services parties - 0.562Relationship with local authorities - 0.611Remarks * P < 0.10

Table 6: Results of independent-samples T-test (Effect of with and without strategic planning).




fi rms that practised strategic planning valued managem--ent expertise and experience more than those that did not. The other two fi rm characteristics that were exam-ined - legal status and geographical diversifi cation - did not have any impact in the respondents’ responses. Over-all though, it can be said that the fi rm characteristics that were examined bought little variation in the value at-tached to resources required in housing development in Malaysia. A major limitation of the research is the large small sample that responded to the questionnaire survey. Hence, the fi ndings must be treated with circumspect. The study however prepares a ground for a broader in-dustry survey to gauge the opinions of the participants in the Malaysian housing industry.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the fi nancial support from National Institute of Valuation, Malaysia, which made this study possible.

References

Aaker D. A. (1989) Managing assets and skills: The key to a sustainable competitive advantage. Califor nia Management Review. 31(2), 91-106. Abdul-Aziz A.-R.,Ho S. Y. and Jaafar M. (2006), Com petitive resources of private housing develop ers: the Malaysian perspective. Journal of Engi neering, Design and Technology, 4(1), 71-80.Abdul-Rahman, H., Kwan C. L. & Woods P. C. (1999) Quality function deployment in construction design: application in low-cost housing design. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 16(6), 591-605.Agus M. R. (2002) The role of state and market in the Malaysian housing sector. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 17, 49-67.Al-Obaidi M. A. A. H. & Wood P. (2006) Investigations on effect of the orientation on thermal comfort in terraced housing in Malaysia. International Journal of Low Carbon Technologies, 1(2), 167-176.Andrews K. R. (1971) The concept of corporate strat egy. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL. Ansoff H. I. (1965) Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. McGraw-Hill, New York. Baldwin, J. R. & Gu, W. (2004) Trade liberalisation: export-market participation. productivity growth and innovation, Research paper,

Ottawa: Minister of Industry. Accessed from:http://statcan.gc.ca/english/research/ 11F0027MIE/11F0027MIE2004027.pd (15th March 2007).Barney J. B. (1986) Organizational culture: Can it be source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656- 665. Barney J. B. (1991) Firm resources and sustained com petitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.Barney J. B. (1995) Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Ex ecutive, 9(4), 49-61. Barney J. B. (2002) Gaining and Sustaining Competi tive Advantage. Second edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Beatty A. & Harris D. G. (1999) The effects of taxes, agency costs and information asymmetry on earnings management: A comparison of public and private fi rms. Review of Accounting Stud ies, 4(3-4), 299-326. Beard J. W. & Sumner M. (2004) Seeking strategic advantage in the post-net era: viewing ERP systems from the resource-based perspective. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 13 (2), 129-150.Bertaud, A. and Malpezzi, S. (2001) Measuring the costs and benefi ts of urban land use regula tion: a simple model with an application to Ma laysia. Journal of Housing Economics, 10(3), 393-418.Black J. A. & Boal K. B. (1994) Strategic resources: Traits, confi gurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Summer), 131-148. Carmeli A. (2001) High- and low-performance fi rms: Do they have different profi les of perceived core intangible resources and business environ ment? Technovation. 21(10), 661-671.Carmeli A. (2004) Assessing core intangible resources. European Management Journal. 22(1), 110- 122.Chan K. W., Hwang P. & Burgers W. P. (1993) Multi nationals’ diversifi cation and the risk-return trade-off. Strategic Management Journal, 14(4), 275-286. Chen H. & Chen T-J. (2003) Governance structures in strategic alliances: Transaction cost versus re source-based perspective. Journal of World Business, 38(1), 1-14.


Collis D. J. (1991) A resource-based analysis of glo bal competition: The case of the bearings industry. Strategic Management Journal. 12 (Summer), 49-68.Crist D. (2004) Housing activity. Housing Economics. 51 (12), 17-18.Daniel A. L. (1992) Strategic planning – The role of the chief executive. Long Range Planning. 25(2), 97-104.Demsetz R. S. & Strahan P. E. (1997) Diversifi cation, size, and risk at bank holding companies. Jour nal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 29(3), 300-313. Doi N. (1985) Diversifi cation and R&D activity in Jap anese manufacturing fi rms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 6(3), 147-152. Duncan, J. (2002) Innovation in the building sector – Trends and new technologies: In The Insti tute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Convention, 25 March 2002, Wellington. New Zealand: The Institute of Professional Engi neers New Zealand.Fahy, J. (2002) A resource-based analysis of sustain able competitive advantage in a global envi ronment. International Business Review. 11 (1), 57-78.Fernandez E. (2005) The property market in Malaysia: Segmentation and decoupling as key elements for a better understanding: In: 16th National Real Estate Convention 2005: Developing real estate into the future, 5-6 July 2005, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Gary M. S. (2005) Implementation strategy and per formance outcomes in related diversifi cation. Strategic Management Journal, 26(7), 643- 664. Gonzalez G. M. (2005) Building sustainable housing fi nance markets: Proceedings of the housing fi nance roundtable in the Andean Region 1. Housing Finance International. 19(3), 7-18.Grant R. M. (1991) The resource-based theory of com petitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. Guillen M. F. (2000) Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 362-380. Hall R. (1992) The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal. 13(2), 135-144.Hall R. (1993) A framework linking intangible resourc

es and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal. 14(8), 607-618.Hare J. B. (1994) So you want to go public?. Manage ment Accounting, 76(6), 25-29. Hitt M. A. & Ireland R. D. (1985) Corporate distinc tive competence, strategy, industry and per formance. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 273-293. Hitt M. A., Hoskisson R. E. & Kim H. (1997) Inter national diversifi cation: Effects on innova tion and fi rm performance in product-diversi fi ed fi rms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767-798. Hitt M. A., Ireland R. D. & Palia K. A. (1982) Indus trial fi rms’ grand strategy and functional im portance: Moderating effects of technology and uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal. 25(2), 265-298.Hoskisson R. E. & Hitt M. A. (1988) Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct fi rms. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 605-621. Huff A. S. (1982) Industry infl uences on strategy refor mation. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2), 119-131. Imrie R. (2004) Disability, embodiment and the mean ing of the home. Housing Studies, 19(5), 745- 764. Johnson R. (2004) Mental health, social inclusion and housing: Mapping the issues for service pro viders. Housing, Care and Support. 7(2), 10- 16.Kaleka A. (2002) Resources and capabilities driving competitive advantage in export markets: Guidelines for industrial exporters. Industrial Marketing Management. 31(3), 273-283. Kamien, M. and Schwartz, N. (1982) Market struc ture and innovation, New York: Cambridge University Press.Klumpes P. J. M. (2005) Managerial use of discounted cash-fl ow or accounting performance meas ures: Evidence from the U.K. life insurance in dustry. Geneva Papers on Risk & Insurance, 30(1), 171-188. Lea M. (2005) Attracting private capital into low-in come markets. Housing Finance Internation al, 20(1), 7-19. Leitner P. (2005) Measure twice, cut once: Creating and measuring value in the private fi rm. Strate gic Finance, 87(3), 26-32.




Li J., Lam K. C. K., Karakowsky L. & Qian G. (2003) Firm resource and fi rst mover ad vantages: A case of foreign direct investment (FDI) in China. International Business Re view, 12(5), 625-645. Lee K. C. & Ng K. K. Peng (1996) Customer orient ation and buyer satisfaction: the Malaysian housing market. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Man agement, 13(1), 101-116. Liang N. & Rhoades S. A. (1988) Geographic diversi fi cation and risk in banking. Journal of Eco nomics and Business, 40(4), 271-284. Lim C. S. J. (1997) Housing and the environment: A planner’s perspective. In Institute of Strategic and International Studies (eds). Housing the nation: A defi nitive study. Kuala Lumpur: Cag amas Berhad. pp. 667-692. Maclennan D. & Yong T. (1996) Economic perspec tive on the structure of local housing systems. Housing Studies, 11(3), 387-400. Maijoor S. & van Witteloostuijn A. (1996) An empiri cal test of the resource-based theory: Strategic regulation in the Dutch audit industry. Strate gic Management Journal. 17 (7), 549-569.Malpezzi, S. and Mayo, S. K. (1997) Getting housing incentives right: a case study of the effects of regulation, taxes, and subsidies on housing supply in Malaysia. Land Economics, 73 (3), 372-391.McKiernan P. (1997) Strategy past, strategy futures. Long Range Planning, 30(5), 790-798. Mol M. J. (2003) Purchasing’s strategic relevance. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. 9 (1), 43-50.Morash E. A. & Lynch D. F. (2002) Public policy and global supply chain capabilities and perform ance: A resources-based view. Journal of Inter national Marketing, 10(1), 25-51. Ong H. C. & Lenard D. (2002) Partnership between stakeholders in the provision of and access to affordable housing in Malaysia: In: FIG XXII International Congress, 19-26 April 2002, Washington, D. C., USA. Penrose E. T. (1959) The theory of the growth of the fi rm. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Prahalad C. K. and Hamel G. (1990) The core com petence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review. 68 (3), 79-91.Prodhan B. K. & Harris M. C. (1989) Systematic risk and the discretionary disclosure of geographi cal segments: An empirical investigation of

US multinationals. Journal of Business Fi nance & Accounting, 16(4), 467-492. Reed R. (2001) The signifi cance of social infl uences and establishe housing values. The Appraisal Journal, 69(4), 356-361.Rothschild W. E. (1980) How to ensure the continued growth of strategic planning. The Journal of Business Strategy. 1(1), 11-18. Rose P. S. (1995) The diversifi cation and cost effects of interstate banking. The Financial Review, 31(2), 431-452. Rouse M. J. and Daellenbach U. S. (1999) Rethinking research methods for the resource-based perspective: isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal. 20(5), 487-494. Rumelt R. (1984) Towards a strategic theory of the fi rm. In: Lamb, R. B. (eds). Competitive Strategic Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 556-570.Seiders D. F. (2004) The outlook. Housing Econom ics. 52 (1), 1-7. Sekaran U. (2003) Research methods for business: a skills building approach. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. Selznick P. (1957) Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Harper & Row, New York. Sheng A. (1998) Housing fi nance and Asian fi nancial markets: Cinderella coming to the ball. Vital Speeches of the Day. 64 (8), 251-255. Shuid S. (2004) Low medium cost housing in Malay sia: Issues and challenges: In: Asia Pacifi c Network for Housing Research (APNHR) Conference 2004, 9 - 11 February 2004, Uni versity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong China. Snow C. C. & Hrebiniak L. G. (1980) Strategy, dis tinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quar terly, 25(2), 317-336. Spanos Y. E. & Lioukas S. (2001) An examination into the causal logic of rent generation: Con trasting Porter’s competitive strategy frame work and the resource-based perspective. Stra tegic Management Journal, 22(10), 907-934. Taylor J. E. and Levitt R. E. (2005) Inter-organisa tional knowledge fl ow and innovation diffu sion in project-based industries: In The 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3-6 January 2005, Island of Hawaii. US: IEEE Computer Society, pg. 247c.

Thackray J. (1982) Has corporate diversifi cation gone too far? Planning Review, 10(3), 24-29. Ting K. H. (2002) Listed property companies in Malaysia: A comparative performance analysis: In: Seventh Annual Pacifi c Rim Real Estate Society Conference, 21-23 Janu ary 2002, Christchurch, New Zealand.Ugboro I. O. (1991) Top management involvement and strategic planning system performance: A validation study. S.A.M. Advanced Manage ment Journal. 56(4), 38-42.Usilappan M. (2005) Property risk analysis: In: 16th National Real Estate Convention 2005: Devel oping real estate into the future, 5-6 July 2005, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Van Vliet W. (2003) So what if housing research is still thriving? Researchers’ perception of the use of housing studies. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18(2), 183-198. Wernerfelt B. (1984) A resource-based view of the fi rm. Strategic Management Journal. 5 (2), 171-180.Wolverton M. L., Ping C. & Hardin III W. G. (1998) Real estate portfolio risk reduction through intracity diversifi cation. Journal of Real Es tate Portfolio Management, 4(1), 35-41. Yap S. H. (1991) The private sector in Malaysian con struction. Habitat International. 15(4), 115- 123.



Impact of firm characteristics on the value of resources for Malaysian private housing developers

Documents