In this line, Porter (1991) points out that intangible assets are not valuable in themselves, but because in accordance with the structure of the industry and a particular strategy: activities implemented poorly or inconsistently with the needs of the buyer, can create risks (or ballasts) and non-active. At the same time, technological changes and others in the industry can void the value of assets or transform them into hazards. Resources can also be grouped into tangible and intangible resources, also known as the latter by some researchers as invisible assets. Learn more at this site: Morton Ira Greenberg. Tangible assets are characterized by being easily identifiable and perpetuates; It will therefore be its very nature that they It will prevent contribute fully to the creation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Conversely, intangible resources Yes can contribute greater to sustain competitive advantages and therefore, to business success.
Amit and Schoemaker (1993) require that strategic assets will be a subset of the resources of the company, but especially of capabilities. In this way, the competitive advantages of a company is based essentially on the knowledge and skills they possess, as well as management systems which check; i.e. competitiveness will mainly hold configuration of its intangible assets portfolio. Other authors also believe that the powers of a company portfolio consists the origins of competitive advantages. Being able to identify 3 characteristics of core competencies: 1) allow access to a wide variety of markets, 2) significant increase in the value of the product for the end user, and 3) only harmonisation of technologies and skills of production which will hardly be imitable. From this point of view, the company is not only a set of business, with greater or lesser relationship, but that it will be designed as a set of skills and competence, that may be applied to various fields of activity, i.e., a series of activities linked by a common technological trunk. .