Intangible assets

Intangible assets component in Brief

The existing maturity models in this field rarely address the matter of intangible assets1. However, the importance of intangible assets, e.g. the organizational culture, has been addressed by various researchers2,3,4,5,6. In this model, the intangible assets component examines what kind of stakeholders PM has, what kind of skills people have, how people are trained, how people perceive PM, and how they make decisions based on performance information. Issues related to organizational culture are also important, as often the organizational factors are the most critical issues regarding the promotion of effective PM7,8.

The component does not examine all the conventional areas of intangible assets described in the literature, such as patents, trademarks or brands, but rather it concentrates on employee competencies and the organizational culture defined by Karl-Erik Sveiby’s9 internal structure, as well as those of the stakeholders suggested by Antti Lönnqvist10. As a result, the intangible asset component can be further divided into three subcomponents. These are competencies, organizational culture, and stakeholders. The intangible assets are closely integrated with the other components in the maturity model, because no intangible asset can produce value by itself11.

Key capabilities and management practices

  • Create awareness and understanding of performance management
  • Create organization-wide performance management culture
  • Obtain top management support
  • Adopt a fact-based decision-making culture
  • Form a performance management competence centre
  • Commit people formally to strategy process
  • Train people to process data
  • Integrate organization’s vision and values fully into organization culture
  • Create understanding of the impact of performance goals and targets

See also other components

Maturity levels for Intangible assets component

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Awareness of PM is completely lacking; success is based in individuals; resources are used widely to consolidate data; organizational resistance; no top management support Organization starts to understand PM and its value; information systems cannot be exploited sufficiently; limited senior management support Common organizational culture starts to evolve; people are adopting fact-based decision-making; factors affecting business are understood  better; support from senior management; projects become more strategic; competence centre is being formed People are formally committed to strategy process; people are trained to process data; sponsors come from senior management; competence centre that reports directly to senior management Vision and values are fully integrated into organization culture; measurement and accountability culture exists; organization-wide PM culture; individuals understand the impact of performance goals; mature, proactive and dynamic competence centre

References

  1. Aho, M. 2011.
  2. Bititci et al., 2006
  3. Bourne et al., 2002
  4. Bourne et al., 2005
  5. Franco & Bourne, 2003
  6. Franco-Santos & Bourne, 2005
  7. van Decker, 2011
  8. Frolick & Ariyachandra, 2006
  9. Sveiby, 1997
  10. Lönnqvist, 2004
  11. Oiva, 2007

Comments are closed.