In Search of Strategic Assets

Abstract

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.

Intangible resources of competitive advantage: Analysis of 49 Asian airlines across three business models

“…However, tangible assets are unlikely to be sources of sustainable competitive advantage because they are easy to duplicate and are therefore relatively imitable, substitutable, and mobile. In contrast, intangible resources are deemed the most important strategically (see, for example, Barney, 1991;Carmeli, 2001;Hall, 1992Hall, , 1993Itami and Roehl, 1987;Michalisin et al, 1997).…”

Small Medium Enterprises’ Resources and the Development of Innovation in Malaysia

“…In addition, it appears from the previous literature that intangible resources are in general drivers to firm's success (Amit et al 1993;Barney 1991;Conner 2002;Michalisin et al 1997). The present study will identify whether there are similar effects hold for Malaysia SMEs, but in the context of product innovation performance (PIP).…”

Survey of Cross-Cultural Technology Transfer Research

“…Knowledge as a firm's strategic asset, and technology transfer as project management (e.g., Michalisin, Smith & Kline, 1997;Sicotte & Langley, 2000;Gupta & Aronson, 2000;Lin & Berg, 2001;Saad, Cicmil, & Greenwood, 2002;Bresnen, Edelman, Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003;Fernie, Green, Weller, & Newcombe, 2003;Huang & Newell, 2003;Koskinen, Pihlanto, -Under the project management perspective, the most appropriate methods for managing technology transfer process are focused to provide the comprehensive view and describe completely the nature of the technology transfer phenomenon (Saad, Cicmil, & Greenwood, 2002;Hartmann, 2007;Nguyen, 2012 (Gupta & Aronson, 2000).…”