Sometimes quantified and rarely qualified

Research has found intangible resources explain performance variation in firms. To be precise, the interaction and combinations of resources create sustainable competitive advantage according to Galbreath & Galvin (2006, 164).

However, simply possessing resources does not translate them into value (Priem and Butler 2001). Firms achieve value creation by gaining, combining and utilizing resources (Grant 2002).

This strategic management view of the firm environment implies, that the right mix of resources and communication should achieve sustainable competitive advantage. But what exactly is the right mix for what type of company? And when is it the right time to develop the mix?

Moreover, to me the nature of intangible assets are more suggestive than definitional, more holistic than functional and more relational than rational.

Key decision-makers must learn to communicate that intangible assets serve as managerial business function. IA’s are there to facilitate and create business processes that integrate cross-functional teams and outcomes. If managers can stop wasting their time on eternal expenditure justification intangible assets can be understood and successfully integrated by financial and operational strategy.

This entry was posted in Study, brand and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About Consensio

    We are a Western Australian Brand development business. We enable our clients to plan, design,measure and protect their brand assets.
Innovation Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory