Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the needs to assess the value and impact of the intangible resources and efforts produced by the library.

A literature overview is used to provide the background of intangibles assessment and its application in libraries, with examples of library intangible resources used and efforts produced, and reviews the possible benefits for libraries in adopting and effectively utilizing intangible assessment.

The library has multiple intangible assets, resources, and efforts it produces that are not generally accounted for in annual assessments, accountability reporting, or budget planning. Learning to account for and include the intangibles used/produced by the library will increase the library's capability to address accountability concerns of stakeholders, more effectively align the library's resources with strategic responses, and more effectively utilize intangible assets and resources.

Increased reporting and usage of intangible resources/products by the library could provide library administrators with a proactive means of increasing the effectiveness and scope of library assessment, valuation, and resource planning and usage.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the degree to which intangible resources explain performance variation among firms.

The method includes a purpose‐designed survey to measure the impact of tangible resources, intangible resources and industry structure on firm performance.

The results suggest that, in the main, intangible resources do explain performance variation, even when measured against other potential performance impacting factors. Research limitations/implications – The results suggest that capabilities, conceptualized as an intangible resource, might not be the firm's most important, contrary to theory. Further, this study suggests that future research might best be served by exploring relationships between resources and the degree to which resource combinations are important to firm performance.

Resource allocation is a constant struggle for management. The results of this study suggest that investment in intangible resources might be a means to drive, and possibly sustain, competitive advantage.

This paper studies intangible resources in conjunction with other potential performance determinants, thus demonstrating a more stringent test of the resource‐based view of the firm than previous studies.

The purpose of this paper is to present the main assumptions of the resource-based theory according to which the success of an organization is mainly dependent on the ability of capitalizing its inner capacity. The author draws attention to the measurement of intangible resources of libraries and their evaluation, crucial from the point of view of library effectiveness and the quality of its services. The author also emphasizes the specific character of intangible resources, including lack of their mobility, specialization and difficulty in their replacing, which may result in hindering management processes.

The second part of the paper illustrates the author’s research in the field of intangible resources in Polish libraries, including human resources (knowledge, competencies, employee skills), competencies of library management staff, business strategies, organizational culture, communication skills and relations between employees, the ability to communicate and relations with the library community, in particular with its users, library reputation, brand, library innovativeness and the ability to adapt to changes and expectations of the community, the ability of the library to cooperate with other institutions, including networks and consortia, the ability to use and support new technological solutions, the ability to introduce new technologies in the library, the ability to create and acquire intellectual property (copyright, licensing, trademark protection, etc.).

Research has shown that libraries pay growing attention to the relation with the community. Concentrating on library resources means concentrating on readers and providing services that would satisfy readers. However, it seems that the knowledge of library management in the field of managing of intangible resources is still insufficient.

The paper presents the first study of this kind conducted in Poland.

Focusing on managerial problems related to the measurement of intangibles, this paper develops and validates a hedonic-pricing methodology for the evaluation of the intangible resources of companies obtaining their shadow prices.

The paper adapts a hedonic-pricing methodology developed primarily for markets in real estate and secondhand cars to define how much intangibles may contribute to companies' market value. A certain calibration of the original tool has been developed to make this methodology appropriate for interpretation and practical use. The main advantage of this approach is that it allows for an evaluation of the shadow prices of intangible resources. These prices can be interpreted as the market value of the intangible resources which are not reflected on the balance sheet.

The results of this study demonstrate that hedonic pricing with a self-selection correction generates robust estimates. As one can see, the positive contribution of a high endowment of intangibles for all shadow prices is confirmed through estimations using two different techniques. Meanwhile, the negative effect of a low endowment is even more evident for the baseline model. This model shows consistent negative shadow prices for the majority of underinvested intangibles. Brands have the highest shadow prices in the introduced models; human capital, as measured by the qualification of top management and investments in employees, has likewise demonstrated high prices. However, most structural resources seem to be not reflected to a large degree in companies' market value.

This paper brings new opportunities to obtain the monetary value of intangible resources based on estimated market prices of a corporation's resource portfolio. These prices may be used for several purposes – for example, benchmarking for performance management, capital budgeting or knowledge-management practices. Moreover, by having methodological value, this study opens ways to evaluate any other intangibles which are not explicitly discussed in the empirical test of this particular study.

This study primarily contributes to the methodological advancement of evaluation of corporate intangible resources. It departs from the conventional hedonic-pricing mechanism to identify cogent estimates to intangibles in monetary terms. Importantly, this mechanism implies individual shadow prices for specific intangible resources which makes the contribution of this study unique for the existing literature, both within resource-based and value-based views.

There are several strands that cope with particular intangible resources, such as intangible assets, intellectual, human, and organisational capital, data and information, knowledge and capabilities. However, until now there have been no attempts to define and identify all intangible resources systematically in one framework. The purpose of this paper is to show how an exhaustive and exclusive categorial system of all intangible resources can be generated.

Following the idea of comparative analyses by grounded theory, it will be referred to relevant approaches which can be defined in academic literature. It is investigated how types of intangible resources, that share common attributes, can be grouped together, which categories emerge, and how these categories can be defined. This gradually leads to the creation of the whole categorial system based on empirical inductionism. At the same time, the categorial system is created based on logical deductionism. Having defined intangible resources as the objects of reasoning and by which leading principles will be looked at, the class of intangible resources will be broken down into categories or sub‐classes with the help of precisely formulated attributes.

Generation of a comprehensive, consistent, and complete categorial system of all possible types of intangible assets.

Solely a theoretical paper. Although empirical examples are provided it might be interesting to demonstrate the application of this categorial system.

With such a categorial system we are in the position to identify and locate the uncountable number of “real world” types of intangible resources more precisely and efficiently.

With such an attempt it may become clearer how to cope with different types of intangible resources, how to gather, create, use, share and develop them more appropriately.

The purpose of this paper is to construct and propose a definition for intangibles derived from the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm for use in academic research and practical applications.

Intangibles are defined as a subset of corporate resources. In this paper, various definitions for intangibles are tested against the RBV framework.

The majority of definitions in the extant literature are (implicitly or explicitly) in synchronization with the RBV. Thus, it is possible to find and propose a common definition for intangibles.

Some researchers argue that the field is still in its embryonic stages and thus the concepts might still be too fresh in order to find a stable common definition.

The paper offers a conceptual lens through which one can clearly link intangibles to strategy and offers a proposed definition of intangibles that incorporates a meta‐review of the literature.

The paper shows that it is in fact possible to accommodate various definitions of intangibles under one common framework and propose a unified characterization.

This study aims to investigate the effects of perceived tangible and intangible resource inequity and the moderating effect of long‐term orientation on future collaboration.

Outcome and moderating measures were developed using structural equation modeling. Data were collected at the project level of customer‐supplier relationships via survey among German and Swiss firms. The results were generated with regression and subgroup analyses.

The higher the negative tangible inequity or intangible inequity, the lower the customers' willingness to collaborate on future projects with suppliers. However, negative intangible inequity showed a stronger negative effect than negative tangible inequity. When long‐term orientation is in the model, the effects of inequity are stronger in short‐term relationships.

The study extends equity theory and provides a fruitful basis for future research at the project level of the customer‐supplier relationships. Specifically, since the effects of negative intangible inequity are stronger than the effects of negative tangible inequity, intangible resources may be more important than tangible resources to the future of customer‐supplier relationships. Since prior research does not delineate between tangible and intangible inequity, this is a unique finding and an important contribution to the application of equity theory in business. Cultural homogeneity is a limitation of the study. Furthermore, a longitudinal study could add insight.

This research offers a distinction between the effects of tangible and intangible resource inequity; it disaggregates the concepts of tangible and intangible resource inequity and tests the effects of either “positive inequity” (i.e. receiving more than deserved) or “negative inequity” (i.e. receiving less than deserved); and it separates short‐term from long‐term oriented companies to allow for a more discrete analysis, than prior approaches, of the effects of inequity on the propensity for future collaboration.

The Resource‐Based View of the Firm (RBV) has become an important stream of literature in strategic management. RDV's main prescription is that strategic assets are crucial determinants of sustainable competitive advantage and thus firm performance. Unfortunately, little empirical research has been occasioned to substantiate that prescription. Part of the difficulty in empirically testing RBV's main prescription lies in identifying resources capable of being strategic assets. This article combines RBV logic, the definition of strategic assets, Hall's studies, and the logic embodied in several streams of management literature to explain why strategic assets are intangible in nature, to show that not all intangible resources are strategic assets, and to demonstrate that company reputation, product reputation, employee knowhow, and organizational culture possess the characteristics of strategic assets. That is the foundation for the proposed hypotheses and proposed conceptual model presented in this paper for testing RBV's main prescription. We also discuss the practical, theoretical and empirical implications of this paper and make suggestions regarding empirical testing.

Using the resource-based view and knowledge-based view as theoretical backdrop, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between intangible assets and firm performance.

The firms’ audited annual reports were collected during the period of 2007–2017 from 49 listed manufacturing firms of four industries in DSE, Bangladesh. This inductive research uses panel data (fixed-effect) estimation technique for balanced panel data to measure, describe, and analyze the firm performance.

After controlling some specific variables, the results reveal mixed behavioral effects of intangible assets on firm performance. Even if intangible assets trigger a significant rise in the firms’ EPS (a measure of financial performance), the firms cannot maximize shareholders’ wealth due to their poor performance in the stock market of Bangladesh.

The proposed models could be important tools for managers to integrate intangible assets in their decision process. The proposed models could also be important tools for investors to select their portfolios that have a track record for continuous investment in intangible assets in an efficient and sustainable way.

Intangible assets are largely absent from the firms’ balance sheet. Consequently, previous empirical research works struggled to measure and quantify the effects of intangible assets on firm performance. The study fills that gap in the understanding of intangible assets’ nature, measurement method, and their effects on firm performance.

The paper aims to rethink empirical models and theory used in explaining banks and financial institutions (FIs) and to enhance the process of theory construction. This is a provisional response to Colander et al. (2009) and Gendron and Smith-Lacroix’s (2013) call for a new approach to developing theory for finance and FIs.

An embryonic “behavioural theory of the financial firm” (BTFF) is outlined based on field research about banks and FI firms and relevant literature. The paper explores “conceptual connections” between BTFF and traditional finance theory ideas of financial intermediation. It does not seek to “integrate” finance theory and alternative theory in “meta theory” and has a more modest aim to improve theory content through “connections”.

The “conceptual connections” provide a means to develop ideas proposed by Scholtens and van Wensveen (2003). They are part of a “house with windows” intended to provide systematic means to “take data from the outside world” whilst continuously recognising “the complexities of the context” (Keasey and Hudson, 2007) to both challenge and build the core ideas of FT.

The BTFF is a means to create “conversations” between academics, practitioners and regulators to aid theory construction. This can overcome the limitations of such an embryonic theory.

The ideas developed create new opportunities to develop finance theory, propose changes in banks and FIs and suggest changes in the focus of regulation.

Regulators can use the expanded conceptual framework to encourage theory development and to enhance accountability of banks and FIs to citizens.