Intangible-intensive profile of a company: the key to outperforming
| Published date | 12 October 2015 |
| Pages | 721-741 |
| Date | 12 October 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2015-0025 |
| Author | Elena Shakina,Angel Barajas |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management |
Intangible-intensive profile
of a company: the key to
outperforming
Elena Shakina
Department of Financial Management,
National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Perm, Russia, and
Angel Barajas
Department of Accountancy and Finance, University of Vigo, Ourense, Spain and
National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Perm, Russia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to reveal and empirically validate a new typology of company
strategic profiles regarding intangible resources.
Design/methodology/approach –The study is carried out in three steps. The first stage comes to
identify the coordinates of intangiblesin which strategic profiles are found. Thesecond stage enables a
clusterizationof more than 1,600 European companiesobserved during seven years in the coordinatesof
intangibles.The last step introducescomparative analysis of these clustersin terms of their performance.
Findings –As a result of empirical analysis three strategic profiles regarding intangibles are
discovered. Two of these profiles are called intangible-intensive as they demonstrate clear
predominance of a particular set of intangibles. The innovative profile is associated with intensive
investment in innovation and networking capabilities. The conservative profile puts emphasis on
managerial capabilities and development of business process. The non-intangible-intensive profile,
that has been called moderate, evenly allocates resources among intangibles keeping them on a low
level relative to the intangible-intensive profiles.
Practical implications –This research is useful for practitioners in strategic and knowledge
management. It provides insight into common features of company strategies for intangibles as well
their impact on short- and long-term performance.
Originality/value –This work contributes to the field of strategic knowledge management by
demonstrating a new relevant typology in company behavior regarding intangibles. Moreover,
it equips decision makers in companies with a tool to design strategic vision in intangibles.
Keywords Cluster, Intangible-intensive strategy, Intangibles, Strategic profile
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, different strategic typologies were proposed by
scholars like Miles et al. (1978), Porter (1985) and Maidique and Patch (1982). Later, with
the resource-based perspective, the research orientation shifted from the study of
typologies to that of specific factors in companies ( Jusoh and Parnell, 2008). Even when
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2015
pp. 721-741
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-03-2015-0025
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The authors thank the researchers of the ID Lab (NRU Higher School of Economics –Perm Campus)
for their useful comments and remarks during preparations and discussions of the paper. The
authors also thank the assistants of the ID Lab for their work creating the database and their
support. This study comprises research findings carried out within the framework of the project
(Number 15-18-20039) supported by the Russian Scientific Fund.
721
Intangible-
intensive
profile of a
company
a conflict between market-based and resource-based perspectives can exist, since the
first put the stress on specific factors in industry and the second in companies, common
features in companies can be identified. In that sense, this paper looks for those
elements that can generate new typologies regarding the core resources in the New
Economy like intangibles in companies. So, the typologies are going to be linked to
specific features in companies and not in the industry.
Terms such as knowledge-intensive (Starbuck, 1992; Alvesson, 1993; Williams and
Nones, 2009; Martínez-Torres, 2014) and R&D-intensive (Ahern, 1993; Lev and
Sougiannis, 1996; Hatzichronoglou, 1997; Williams and Lee, 2009) companies or sectors
have recently entered the research discussion. The fact that those concepts have
emerged reflects the interest of academics in classifying companies considering their
intangible resources. There is still a gap in both theoretical and empirical foundations
for a typology of companies in new economy, wherein intangibles, and innovative
behavior in particular, are of greater importance. This study aims to fill this gap.
We believe that there is room to test typologies that are related to the use of
idiosyncratic assets –that is, intangibles. Meanwhile, we expect to determine a specific
cluster of companies that introduce innovative orientation in their strategies. In this
study, we suggest referring to those companies that introduce clear strategic
orientation regarding intangibles as “companies with an intangible-intensive profile”.
It is important to emphasize that our intention is to carry out an exploratory empirical
study without imposing any specific typology of companies’profiles in advance.
However, if any clear profile is discovered it would be interesting to understand how it
can contribute to the company’s higher performance.
Therefore, this paper aims:
(1) to explore companies’profiles related to the components of their intangibles; and
(2) if any profiles are found, to test which ones entail higher performance compared
to others.
This understanding would help both academic researchers and practitioners to
comprehend how companies are distributed across different intangible-intensive
strategies, and what the common features of such strategies are.
2. Literature review
2.1 Strategic profiles
It would be useful for managers to identify how to define strategies for their
companies in order to reach better performance. Each company is special. In that
sense, Rumelt (1991, p. 167) suggests that industry may not be the most useful unit of
analysis when considering the business strategy. Moreover, according to Rumelt, the
neoclassical idea that firms in an industry are homogeneous is not correct; in fact, real
industries are highly heterogeneous. Osborne and Cowen (2002) remark that
companies that have similar sizes, products and years in business can differ greatly
in performance. Using their experience as consultants, Osborne and Cowen (2002)
look for the common features of high-performance companies, and separate high-
performance companies from “also-rans”. The present paper will identify company
profiles using empirical data.
The existence of factors that gather the common features of firms can help to cluster
them and extract consequences in order to outperform companies that lack a clear
strategy. Companies stake out their strategic position consciously or unconsciously
722
JIC
16,4
To continue reading
Request your trial