However, somehow in the midst of ‘doing’, firms often can’t define or emphasise their competency in such ways that it would give them competitive advantage in the market. To improve the competitive advantage, we suggest to clients to look into three areas of strategic planning. The firms’ core competencies need to be identified, Market trends to be scouted for and competitor intelligence need to gathered to arrive at meaningful strategic planning outcomes.

This is where we ask- who is doing it? In smaller firms, marketing is often understaffed or not at all present. Increasing organisational capability is becoming vital if any firm wants to grow or expand. How would you know that your invested dollars are giving you return? The role of marketing in your organisation needs to be seen clearly. We encounter very different types of marketing personnel in organisations, not always with the set of skills required to identify competitive advantage for the company. In our upcoming posts, we will discuss some of the different ‘marketer types’ we think of.

Much has been written about the influence of national culture and cross-cultural influence on globalized companies (see for example key culture writers like Hofstede, Tropenaars and Friedman). The link of one’s heritage and underlying assumptions to organsiational performance per se has held bread and butter money for generations of business consultants, HR professionals and psychologists.

It strikes me as interesting, that a quantitative measurement is often engaged to ‘measure’ the organisational culture, e.g. “…33% of our people are effective in their performance; 43% engage in after-hours social activities…”, as if behavioural observation was all that culture is; e.g. we hear culture defined as ‘the way we do things around here‘.

This may be a catchy way of remembering this ‘culture thing’, but it is not an organisational culture definition. Culture is deeper ingrained in people than behaviour that we observe everyday. We behave based on our beliefs and values which are fundamentally based on our deeper assumptions.

That’s why culture can be shared, even when the key people, who left the place, are not there anymore to demonstrate the behaviour. I call this the living heritage of organisations. To measure this, we need different instruments, don’t you think?

Intangible assets remain definition bound and thus subjective. In brand and design practice, most professionals don’t acknowledge that what they are delivering as business service is considered a difficult return on investment for their clients.

There is a lack of consistent terminology in the literature relating to intangible assets and intellectual capital.Management scholars tend to employ either “capital” or “asset” terminology to refer to investments with no physical existence.

Lawyers refer to intellectual property, which has property rights in law. Accountants do not generally use the term “intellectual capital”.

Accountants refer to identifiable intangible assets, goodwill and intellectual property (with legal rights) under the umbrella of “intangible assets”.

Economists refer to intangible assets in terms of their source, as investments, and role in production, as capital. (Hunter, Webster, Wyatt, 2005)

As business-to-business services that deliver design, brand and marketing related services, practitioners should take note of the difficulty that clients have with working out expenditure justification. I think it is therefore important to assist the client in going through a transparent process of achieving mutual goals such as I described in my earlier post about the Consensio intangible asset chain.