Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Management article
-
Reference no. CMR124
Published by: University of California, Berkeley
Published in: "California Management Review", 1998

Abstract

This article unbundles the relation between commitment and flexibility by distinguishing between firm-specific and usage-specific resources. This distinction turns out to be valuable because firm-specificity does not always imply (nor is it always implied by) usage-specificity. Firm-specific resources are more strategic than usage-specific resources. More broadly, the distinction between these two kinds of specificity helps explain why the tension between commitment and flexibility can easily be overdone: the two aren''t always negative measures of each other.

About

Abstract

This article unbundles the relation between commitment and flexibility by distinguishing between firm-specific and usage-specific resources. This distinction turns out to be valuable because firm-specificity does not always imply (nor is it always implied by) usage-specificity. Firm-specific resources are more strategic than usage-specific resources. More broadly, the distinction between these two kinds of specificity helps explain why the tension between commitment and flexibility can easily be overdone: the two aren''t always negative measures of each other.

Related