Alderson’s transvection and Porter’s value system: a comparison of two independently-developed theories

doi:10.1108/13552529710171966

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Resources:

Journal of Management History (Archive)

ISSN: 1355-252X
Merged into: Management Decision

Online from: 1995

Subject Area: Management Science/Management Studies

Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Alderson’s transvection and Porter’s value system: a comparison of two independently-developed theories

Document Information:
Title:	Alderson’s transvection and Porter’s value system: a comparison of two independently-developed theories
Author(s):	Richard L. Priem, (Department of Management, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA), Abdul M. A. Rasheed, (Department of Management, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA), Shahrzad Amirani, (AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ, USA)
Citation:	Richard L. Priem, Abdul M. A. Rasheed, Shahrzad Amirani, (1997) "Alderson’s transvection and Porter’s value system: a comparison of two independently-developed theories", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 3 Iss: 2, pp.145 - 165
Keywords:	Analysis, History, Management theory, Marketing theory, Value chain
Article type:	General review
DOI:	10.1108/13552529710171966 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	MCB UP Ltd
Abstract:	Evaluates Wroe Alderson’s general theory of marketing as a possible platform for further developing Michael Porter’s ideas on strategic management. Alderson’s “transvection” and Porter’s “value system” are compared, and the uses of these concepts by their authors in developing approaches to achieving sustainable competitive advantage are contrasted. The potential for extension of each theory based on their similarities and differences is discussed. Presents examples showing how Alderson’s ideas may be used to resolve impasses in Porter’s work, and how recent empirical work testing Porter’s value system may be useful in extending and justifying Alderson’s transvection ideas. More generally, we suggest that Alderson’s general theory may provide a starting point for integrating Michael Porter’s ideas with the concepts from the “resource-based view” of strategy, and that instances of independent formulation of nearly-identical theories present special opportunities for scholars interested in both theory building and theory testing.