Constructing a definition for intangibles using the resource based view of the firm

Kristandl, Gerhard; Bontis, Nick

doi:10.1108/00251740710828744

Cited by 194 publications

(156 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Although the intangibles literature has developed over several decades, research dealing with intangibles suffers from a fundamental problem, which is the lack of common terminology (Kristandl and Bontis, 2007). Different terms have been used in reference to intangible assets, such as intangibles, intellectual capital or knowledge assets (Beattie and Thomson, 2007;Lev, 2001).…”

Section: Theory and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking bank business models: the role of intangibles

Chen

Danbolt

Holland

2014

Accounting, Auditing &Amp; Accountability Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forthcoming in -The Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2014 Purpose:This paper provides a new way of rethinking banking models by using qualitative research on intangibles. This is required because the banking sector has been transformed significantly by the changing environment over the past two decades. The 2007-2009 financial crisis also added to concerns about existing bank business models. Design/Methodology approach:Using qualitative data collected from interviews with bank managers and analysts in the UK, this paper develops a grounded theory of bank intangibles. Findings:The model reveals how intangibles and tangible/financial resources interact in the bank value creation process, how they actively respond to environmental changes, how bank intangibles are understood by external observers such as analysts, and how bankers and analysts differ in their views. Research implications:Grounded theory provides the means to further develop bank models as business models and theoretical models. This provides the means to think beyond conventional finance constructs and to relate bank models to a wider theoretical literature concerning intellectual capital, organisational and social systems theory, and 'performativity'. Practical implications:Such development of bank models and of a systems perspective is critical to the understanding of banks by bankers, by observers and for their 'critical and reflexive performativity'. It also has implications for systemic risk and bank regulation. Social implications:Improvement in bank models and their use in open and transparent processes are key means to improve public accountability of banks. Originality:The paper reveals the core role of intellectual capital (IC) in banks, in markets, and in developing theory and research at firm and system levels.

show abstract

Section: Theory and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking bank business models: the role of intangibles

Chen

Danbolt

Holland

2014

Accounting, Auditing &Amp; Accountability Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A well formulated and implemented strategy can have significant effect on the attainment of competitive advantage level (Richard, 2000;Arend, 2003;Powell, 2003;Porter & Kramer, 2006). The resource-based view provides an avenue for organizations to plan and execute their organizational strategy by examining the position of their internal resources and capabilities towards achieving competitive advantage (Kristandl & Bontis, 2007;Sheehan & Foss, 2007).…”

Section: Competitive Advantagementioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Organizational Resources and Systems: An Empirical Research

Ismail¹,

Rose²,

Uli³

et al. 2011

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational resources and systems have been conceptualized as to be able to significantly predict the level of competitive advantage. This research empirically examined the importance and emphasis placed on the relationship between organizational resources and systems, especially towards the attainment of firms' competitive advantage. This research was conducted among manufacturers listed in the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers Directory 2008. A cross-sectional study using structured questionnaire was used to obtain responses from the manufacturers. From the subsequent actual survey, 127 respondents replied and completed the questionnaire (12.7% response rate). The large correlation (r = 0.72) implies a strong positive relationship between the organizational resources and systems. As for the variance shared between these two variables, the coefficient of determination (r² = 0.52) suggests that organizational resources help to account for nearly 52% of the variance in systems, and vice versa. The theoretical implication of this study is that it supports and extends the RBV of competitive advantage by illustrating the need for systematic management of resources towards attaining competitive advantage.

show abstract

“…In the current literature we can found an abundance of definitions as to what intangible assets are, but there still no general accepted definition that could be adopted internationally (Kristandl and Bontis, 2007). IFRS define intangible assets as identifiable non-monetary assets without physical substance (IAS 38.8), while Lev and Daum (2004) define intangibles as capabilities and "potential" for future growth and income.…”

Section: Accounting For Intangiblesmentioning

confidence: 99%