مدل asset light
Abstract
1- Introduction
2- Epistemological issues
3- An exploratory study
4- Implications
References
Abstract
This research note raises the question of the lack of critical appraisal of the asset light model. Its purpose is to trigger an in-depth exploration of the determinants of performance of the implementation of such decision. To explore our argument, we used a longitudinal data design that combines both cross sections and time series to examine the effects of the asset light model on share returns, EBITDA and ROE of six leading U.S corporations over a 16-year period. We found that the model had no impact on financial performance. Our purpose is to a trigger debate within academia and practitioners on when and how the asset light model is a valid option. As well as which type of contract to rely on and how to build a differentiating strategy when implementing the asset light model.
Introduction
This research note raises the question of the lack of critical appraisal of the asset light model. Its purpose is to trigger an in-depth exploration of the determinants of performance of the implementation of such a model. The decision to divest properties and specialize in operations (i.e. the asset light model) has become a widespread practice amongst hotel corporations (Fig. 1) and is often presented as the best fit for the organization (The Economist, 2013; Nair, 2014; Host and Marriott 1994 annual reports). This practice, whose advantages have been widely reported throughout academia, is becoming the new norm (Fig. 1). The near universal acceptance of this model makes the dubious assumption that an asset-light strategy is the best fit, in terms of performance, for every organization in the hospitality industry. This assumption contradicts the fundamental principles of strategy, whereby unique choices (of competencies and positioning) are what drives outperformance (Wernerfelt, 1984, Porter, 1979). Blindly accepting the asset light model as the best option for lodging corporations leads practitioners and academia to overlook strategy fundamentals and ignore the consequences of the model on long-term performance. This blind spot in our approach to the issue prevents us from addressing key questions such as, for instance, how to position the company vis-à-vis differentiation. Unfortunately, the lack of critical appraisal of the model is an obstacle to acquiring this knowledge. Since it is accepted as the best choice for all companies, the asset light model and its effects on long-term performance is the subject of very few papers in tourism and hospitality research. These studies, with the exception of one (Low et al., 2015), converge to confirm that the model is beneficial to corporate performance, which begs the question: How can just one divestment model be beneficial to the performance of all companies? Not to mention that companies implement it to different degrees, so what are the contingent variables which moderate the effects? Why are some companies more successful in generating superior performance than others after the implementation of the asset light choice? It appears that academia and executives are wearing blinders when it comes to this model. We hope that this research note will trigger more discussion for a more critical view of the asset light decision with a view to providing valuable insights for both academia and corporate practices.