2013 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering (20th)
July 17-19, 2013
Harbin, P.R.China
Research on Utility Measure of Firm Tangible and
Intangible Resources-Based on Utility Theory
JIANG Yuan-zi，DONG Xue-yan，WANG Tie-nan
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, P.R.China, 150001.
Abstract: The resource-based view of the firm
(RBV) believes that resources are the foundation of
enterprises’ survival and development. However, the
resources investment of firms do not always achieve the
expected output in practice, besides, there is not a good
way to measure the utility degree of resources
investment in the current study, which largely hinder the
investors to allocate resources effectively. Thus, it is
urgent to discuss the question of utility measure of the
firm resources investment. In response to this gap, this
study constructs a utility measure model of enterprises’
tangible and intangible resources based on utility theory,
through the solution to utility parameters to calculate
enterprise resources investment utility value, and finally
takes Shanghai Automotive of China as an example to
provide further analysis. Therefore, this study offers a
tool for enterprises to measure resources investment
utility that improves the feasibility and validity of using
RBV to solve resource allocation problems in some
extent.
Keywords: intangible resource, tangible resource
utility measure model, utility theory
1 Introduction
The resource-based view of the firm (RBV)
hypothesizes that resources are the necessary conditions
to maintain the competitive advantage (Wernerfelt 1984;
Barney 1991; Ray, Barney & Muhanna 2003)[1-3]. The
endowment difference of firm resources is directly
related to the status of their own in the market
competition. Since the 1980s, scholars generally claimed
that resources can be divided into tangible and intangible
ones, and elaborated the material base which almost
contains enterprise’s assets, equipment, human resources,
etc determining the differences of competitive advantage
and firm performance. However, it cannot explain why
the firms in the same industry possessed the same or
similar
resources
have
significantly
different
performance and also cannot illustrate systematically the
reason why the firms (such as state-owned firms)
mastering trait of resources do not have good
performance [4]. In order to achieve scale economy and
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (71031003)
978-1-4799-0474-7/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
scope economy, an increasing number of enterprises
obtain resources by mergers and acquisitions (M&Q)
currently [5], and promote keen competitions in the
market relying on their own resources advantages, such
as the electric business price war in August 2012 which
finally competing their bases of financial resources. All
these examples indicate the importance of resources
guaranteeing the enterprise working [6]. However, from
the economics perspective, ‘the most investment is not
always along with the best output’, it is unsure
enterprises will have remarkable performance even they
possess abundant resources, because prominent
performance need the best fit of resources allocation [7].
While the premise of resources investment satisfies the
matching condition is to measure the utility of resources
input, which requires attention to the output effect of
enterprise resources’ input.
Based on the resource- based view (RBV), scholars
constructed numerous theoretical models and research
paradigms from different aspects about how to use
enterprise resources to build competitive advantage and
to improve the firm performance. Some scholars put
forward some views on the relationship between
resources
and
performance
from
qualitative
perspectives[8], they study the construction of resources
indicator system under the framework of the resources
and their influence mechanism, others empirically
examines the relationships between one resource or
characteristic and enterprise performance (Barney and
Muhanna 2004)[3-9], the rest explore whether input one
resource or not from the aspect of game theory[10], the
results of these studies are consistent with the resource
-based view (RBV) (Barney and Arikan 2001)[11]. There
is still neither an overall research integrated enterprise
resources, nor researches on discussion about resource
utility measure. In order to solve this problem, some
scholars pointed out that the competitive advantage is the
process of resources input and output systematically not
just a single process of resource utilization[12] Therefore,
it is necessary to consider the discussion of resources
utility measure. However, there is not yet a good way to
measure the utility degree of resources investment in the
current studies. In order to further study the problem,
this paper builds a utility measure model based on utility
theory using the analysis on consumption utility for
reference from the economics to discuss the problem of
- 275 -
utility measure on enterprises’ resources input.
2 Theory background
2.1 Resource-based view
The resource-based view (RBV) is proposed by
B.Wernerfelt in 1984[1], and then developed
incrementally by scholars (Barney, Shuen, Teece, Peteraf,
Pisano et al)[13]. This theory defines resources are the
factor set that processed and controlled by enterprises in
order to maintain the survival and development. Previous
studies illustrated that enterprise resources are most
important factors to compete the environment challenge
and the base condition of making performance
differences[14-15]. In the research of enterprise resources,
RBV scholars discuss whether resources would
contribute to the enterprise competitive advantage
employing a resource heterogeneity approach whereby
the resources characteristics are argued to be valuable,
rare, inimitable and non-substitutable (Barney
1991)[2].However, some scholars later pointed out that it
is not sure resources with the characteristics can
contribute enterprise competitive advantage because the
foundation of the enterprises is different that resources
with the characteristics may not match the strategy and
actual operation activities (Newbert 2008)[16], it’s
necessary to discuss the utility measure before deciding
whether firm resources should be invested from this
perspective.
To date, the academic circles still do not have a
uniform standard to the definition or classification of
resources. Some scholars insist that resources can be
divided into tangible resources, intangible resources and
ability (Hall 1992)[17], some scholars hold that intangible
resources include ability (Jeremy Galbreath, 2005)[18]. It
is difficult to identify a specific resource belonging to
resources or capacity because of the ambiguous
definition. On the basis of previous researches, resources
are divided into tangible resources and intangible
resources that is a paradigm widely accepted.
In current studies, tangible resources have been an
important factor influencing performance because of its
controllability. Galbreath (2005) believes that scholars
should consider tangible resources in the actual research
on enterprise resource theory[18]. Not only can tangible
resources bring high performance output directly and
translate it into competitive advantage but also create
duplicate disorder[19-21], which shows tangible assets are
important factors influencing the enterprise performance
undoubtedly, especially for those who rely on natural
resources whose performance must be influenced by the
availability, quality and quantity of physical assets.
Tangible resources are the foundation of enterprises’
development, Galbreath (2005) assumed that intangible
resources are the most important factors in the success of
an enterprise[18]. According to this assertion, we can
explain why enterprises with strong tangible resources
(mass, abundant funds, etc.) do not have expected
performance as well as explain the phenomenon of ‘fight
against longer odds’ in market (such as early Wahaha
acquired state-owned enterprise). Simultaneously, the
enterprise capability theory holds that the root of the
enterprise performance differences is resulted from the
different enterprise ability (enterprise ability is closely
related with the resource utilization of comprehensive
knowledge and skill) differences[22], and capability is an
important part of enterprise intangible resources in the
light of the resource -based view (RBV)[2]. According to
the current researches, it is a perfect approach to solve
the bottleneck through enterprise intangible resources
view to discuss its own hardware problems and from the
perspective of system to balance enterprise tangible and
intangible resource. Nevertheless, the intangible
resources are duality, enterprises are trapped into a
competitive disadvantage[23] also collapse (such as SanLu
powdered milk production enterprise’s collapse).
Therefore, it’s necessary and urgent to discuss the utility
measure before deciding firm resources investment.
2.2 Utility theory
Utility theory is proposed by Daniel Bernoulli in the
famous ‘saint Petersburg paradox’ in 1738 [24] and the
theory has been widely used in the field of
decision-making. Utility is the value measure according
to the preference relation, and relationships among the
research objects can be quantified through the concept of
utility which makes the complicated problems of value
measure comparative in a unified standard[25]. What the
concept of utility in economics is the degree of
satisfaction of consumers after consuming goods or
service[26] generally discussed from the main body and
object two aspects. Utility refers to the satisfaction of
people gained from their own behavior from the main
body of consumption and the ability goods meet peoples’
need or desires from consumption object speaking.
Economists use the concept to explain how rational
consumers allocate their limited resources to
consumption goods bringing the most satisfaction in
practice. The concept of utility is a kind of subjective
value from this aspect which shows different attitudes of
decision makers to risks and consequences of investment.
Utility function is a quantitative expression of the
subjective value. Utility value has both objectivity and
subjectivity[27]. Because the resources investment of
investors the same as the consumption of consumers and
the performance satisfaction degree of resources
investment the same as the consumer do, it is reasonable
of using the utility theory and utility function (value) to
solve the utility measure problem of enterprise tangible
and intangible resources, which is also the point and
theoretical basis of this article. From the current research,
common utility function is usually divided into linear
function, semi logarithmic function and constant elastic
function three kinds of model [28]. This paper adopts the
semi logarithmic function proposed by Yanzhang Wang
(1987) in the fuzzy utility function [29]，and the utility
function should meet the following requirements from
the qualitative study of economic activities:
- 276 -
xi → u i
1 when xi = ∞
(2) f → 
0 when xi = 0
2
(3) df > 0, d f < 0
dxi
dxi
(1) f:
3 Measure of firm resources
Tangible resources are the matter elements
including enterprise equipment, workshop, capital, raw
materials, number of staff, product revenue, profits,
industry monopoly, ect., Elements of enterprises directly
supporting their market behaviors and bringing direct
output which can be quantified[30]. Aboody, Barth,
Kasznik (1999) studied the fixed assets having
significant positive influence on the enterprise
performance[31]. Hay (2001) empirically examined the
relationship between market share and profit though 318
enterprises samples[32]. Following Bharadwaj (2000) and
Hay (2001), this paper uses fixed assets, market share
two indicators to measure enterprise tangible resources.
Fixed assets refers to the relative fixed physical
resources including plant, equipment, ect. Market share
reflects the sales situation and monopoly degree of
enterprise products.
Intangible resources are the basic conditions of
enterprises to gain the continuous competitive
advantage[26], and they include enterprise brand, patents,
property right, trademark, copyright, technology,
innovation, cultural elements ,ect.[33]. Itami and Roehl
(1987) pointed out that all successful enterprises have a
common characteristic is that staff skill level and
enterprise reputation[34], and Richard Hall (1992)
empirically examine finding match the assumption
through survey on enterprise CEOs[20]. Belderbos,
Carree and Lokshin (2004) also empirically tested that
different types of R&D cooperation will produce
different innovation performance[35].
Following Richard Hall(1992), Galbreath (2005)
and
Belderbos (2004), this study utilizes staff
education level, research and development (R&D)
spending and intangible assets three constructs to
measure enterprise intangible resources. Staff education
level (the ratio of employees possessed bachelor degree
or above accounted for the total employees) is a reaction
of staff skills and learning ability[36]. Research and
development (R&D) spending reflects enterprise’s
innovation level, and this construct is also the most
commonly-used index to measure enterprise intangible
resources in the existing research. Intangible assets
mainly refer to enterprise brand, reputation, patent,
copyright, trade secrets, relational capita, ect.
4 Research models
4.1 Model design
Accordingly, the concept of utility refers to the
satisfaction degree of consumer consuming goods. From
the perspective of whether a kind of goods would
produce utility depends on two conditions: one is the
consumption desire and the other is the ability to satisfy
consumers’ desire of goods. In firms whether the
enterprise resources would produce utility also should
meet two conditions: the investors have investment
preference to the resources and the resources investment
could promote effectively the performance of enterprises.
Therefore, we can measure the resources utility value
and the maximize resources matching condition
according to the two conditions.
This paper construct antecedent hypotheses
following resource based view and consumer utility:
(1)Enterprises invest resources with certain
expectation.
(2)Enterprises are person bounded rationality,
namely enterprises are between complete rationality and
irrationality in practice.
(3)Enterprises have investment expected
preferences to resources.
(4)The utility of enterprises gained is different even
with the same condition.
(5)Enterprises prefer to invest resources can obtain
higher utility value.
(6)Employees are always willing to work in
organization with higher utility value.
Utility function can show the utility value of one
kind of commodity combination. Assuming that a
consumer only consumes two kind of commodity then
the utility function can be expressed as:
U = f ( x1 , x2 )
(1)
x1, x2 are the amount of two kinds of commodity in
formula (1), U is utility level. This study introduces
utility theory to the measure of enterprise tangible and
intangible resources, utility is understood the
contribution measure of resources to the enterprise
performance, the more the utility value the grater
contribution of resources to the development of
enterprises. When the utility value are maximum
respectively resources investment are at the best
matching condition. If designing the measure function of
enterprise tangible resources and intangible resources
based on the utility theory, the commodity combination
becomes resources investment combination of enterprise
tangible and intangible resources, the different
combination of resources result in different contributions
to enterprise performance, while the best combination
produce the maximal performance. What we study in this
research is enterprise tangible and intangible resources,
whose measure should also consider such elements as
resources investment structure, investment preference ,
the investment price and demand intensity. Thus, the
basic formula [29] was adopted :
=
u
- 277 -
m
∑ wn (1 − e
n =1
−
csn
d n pn
)
(2)
In formula (2), wn is the investment preference
weight coefficient of nth kind of resource (n = 1 tangible
resources, n = 2 intangible resources), and wn≥0, Σwn =1
(if one is f , the other is 1-f ), the parameters reflect the
value degree of investors to different kinds of resources
and it decide the preferences degree and the maximal
possibly funds to resources. dn is the demand intensity of
enterprise resources stems from previous investment and
the current need of enterprise as well as combined with
decision makers’ investment interest preferences,
psychological factors, it decides the actual resources
investment. pn is the price of resource n (or related price
index ). sn is the share of enterprise total investment
allocating to resource n, also the rate of resource n
investment account for the total investment, and sn≥0,
∑sn=1. c is the total spending of enterprises. Each
parameter symbol and its implication see tab.1.
Tab.1 Parameters of the utility function and its implication
Parameter
Implication
symbol
wn
wn c
)
d n pn
sn =
c(d n pn − wn c)
(d n pn ) 2 ln(
Formula (8) is the structure function of resource
when enterprise resources allocation utility is at
maximum condition. The significance of the formula lies
in which can reveal quantitatively the degree of resource
investment and how investors make the limited resources
to allocate perfectly.
4.2 Parameter solution
According to section 3.1, this paper solves the
utility function parameters in tab.1 as following.
wn is the investment preference weight coefficient
of resource n which is certain subjectivity, this study
uses the investment quantity of each resource accounting
for the total quantity of resources, such as formula (9).
And ri is the investment quantity of resource i, ∑ri is the
total investment quantity of resources.
the preference weight coefficient of resource n
dn
pn
sn
the demand intensity of enterprise resource n
price of resource n or related price index
the share of enterprise total investment allocating
to resource n
c
the total spending of enterprises
So, the utility of enterprise tangible resources and
intangible resource can be measured by constructing the
following goal programming function based on utility
theory.
m
∑ w (1 − e
u
=
n =1
m
∑s
n =1
n
n
−
csn
d n pn
)
(3)
=1
In order to make the utility maximal, structuring
Lagrangian function:
=
L
m
∑ wi (1 − e
−
csn
d n pn
m
) + λ (1 − ∑ sn )
(4)
=
n 1=
n 1
cs
wn c − dn pnn
∂L
e=
=
−λ 0
∂sn d n pn
(5)
m
∂L
= 1 − ∑ sn =0
∂λ
n =1
cs
wn c − dn pnn
λ=
e
d n pn
According to the above formula we can obtain:
ln( wn c) − ln(d n pn ) − ln l
sn =
c / (d n pn )
cs
wc − n
Make λ = n e dn pn to formula (7):
d n pn
(6)
(8)
wn =
ri
(9)
n
∑r
i =1
i
dn is the demand intensity of enterprise resource n
which is certain predicted, in this research, we use the
change quantity of resource in year t and t+1 accounting
for the total change quantity of all the resources, such as
formula (10).
dn =
� ri
n
=
rt +1 − rt
n
i
i
i
t +1
t
=1
i=
i 1 =i 1
�∑ r
n
∑r
(10)
−∑r
pn: parameter uses related price or price index to
measure.
c: parameter uses the total investment expending to
measure.
sn: parameter can be calculate by the value of wn , dn,
c and formula (8).
5 Algorithm analysis
In order to further use the model constructed to
measure the utility value of enterprise tangible and intangible resources, this section take Shanghai Automotive
(stock code: 600104) as an example to utilize the model.
The data are from the enterprise annual report and this
section compare the data of 2008 and 2011 in order to
analyze the results easily, so collecting four years data
from 2007 to 2011.As the second section of this paper,
data in tab.2 is calculated difficultly because of
non-unified standard, this study uses formula (11) to
make transformation of dimensionless to the actual data.
R ji z =
(7)
R ji
R jt0
(11)
R ji z : the transformation of value resource j in year
i;
- 278 -
Tab.2 Actual values of tangible resources and intangible resources of Shanghai automotive in 2007-2011
Tangible resources
Intangible resources
Year
FA(yuan)
MS(%)
RBD(%)
R&D(yuan)
IA (yuan)
2007
17446070955.28
17.7
39.22
604836351.15
1769151247.94
2008
14005649556.31
18.5
57.51
732557607.98
1440322032.00
2009
3725267382.66
19.9
58.00
1215762972.85
1578300513.56
2010
28493961972.42
19.8
61.00
1021840010.92
5760355790.07
2011
28493961972.91
21.02
71.20
591746656.39*
8192067057.29
Note: the data was calculated from Shanghai Automotive (stock code: 600104) annual report. FA: Fixed assets, MS: Market
share, RBD: Rate of the number of employees with bachelor degree or above, R&D: Expending of R&D, IA: Intangible asset. *R&D
expending reduces by 42.29% year-on-year, because parts of the independent brand development project were turned out.
Tab.3 Dimensionless value of resources in Shanghai automotive in 2007-2011
Tangible resources
Intangible resources
FA
MS
RBD
R&D
IA
Year
Total resources
2007
1
1
1
1
1
5
2008
0.802796778
1.04519774
1.466343702
1.211166635
0.814132
5.33964076
2009
0.21353045
1.124293785
1.478837328
2.010069287
0.892123
5.718853113
2010
1.633259549
1.118644068
1.555328914
1.689448739
3.256
9.252681982
2011
2.10314098
1.187570621
1.815400306
0.978358287
4.630507
10.71497693
Tab.4 Utility parameter and utility measure value of Shanghai Automotive in 2008, 2011 of tangible and intangible resources
2008
wn
dn
sn
P*
c
u
∑u
2011
Tangible resources
Intangible resources
Tangible resources
Intangible resources
0.346089713
0.653910433
0.307113271
0.692886774
-0.447547167
1.447547167
0.368467083
0.631532917
0.596331
0.403669
0.986035
0.013965
1.0105
1.0201
5.339641
10.71498
0.345786748
0.504094357
0.307113
0.692886646
0.849881105
0.999999646
p*Price index is obtained according to the car price index released of the National Bureau of Statistics.
R ji : the actual value of resource j in year i ;
R jt0 : the value of resource j in year t0 .
This paper selects data of 2007 for the base data for
the convenience of calculation in this algorithm analysis,
then make the data in the table 2 dimensionless based on
the formula (11) and the results are in tab Data in tab.3 is
calculated through data in 2007 as period base and on the
basis of the real resources value in 2007-2011 of
Shanghai Automotive. Then wn, and dn is calculated
based on the formula (9) and (10), pn utilizes the price
index of corresponding year, c uses the total value of
resources and
sn can be calculated according to formula
(8), lastly the value of resources can be obtained through
formula (2). Results see tab.4.
The result of different indicators are listed in Tab.4.
The result shows the degree of intangible resources
investment preference in 2011 declined compared with
the one in 2008 longitudinally, which suggests the
consciousness of emphasizing on intangible resources in
Shanghai Automotive is being strengthened. However,
the demand intensity and investment allocation
coefficient of tangible resources were increased in 2011,
which shows the most parts of resource were allocated to
tangible resources in practice. The total utility value in
2011was grater than the value in 2008, and the utility
value of intangible resources in 2011 was increased
compared with the value in 2008 while the utility value
of tangible resources declined in detailed description, yet
the declining degree is less than the increasing degree of
intangible resources, Which indicates that the real utility
value of intangible resources is grate even the resources
investment of intangible resources is less than tangible
resources. This result is in accord with the real
development condition of Shanghai Automotive and the
view of ‘high resource input may not have high efficient
output’. Therefore, Shanghai automotive can increase the
intangible resources investment and slow the tangible
based on the utility theory analysis. The resource utility
value is measured through the algorithm analysis,
providing resources utility measure method theoretically
and solving the practice problem how to decide investing
one resource.
6 Conclusion
- 279 -
Resources investment allocation does not always
obtain the best utility value because the unique
advantages of tangible and intangible resources cannot
be quantified effectively in the practice which hinders
the roles of resources advantages. This paper constructs a
utility measure model and makes solutions to calculate
the utility value of enterprises’ tangible and intangible
resources based on utility theory, and takes Shanghai
Automotive of China as an example to further study.
These findings have important academic and
practitioner implications which are then discussed.
Theoretically, this paper provides scholars with a new
perspective to calculate the resources utility value based
on utility theory in economic, which enriches the
resource-based view (RBV) and improves the feasibility
and validity of using RBV to solve resource allocation
problems. In practice, this article provides a train of
thought as reference and a tool to quantify the utility
value of enterprise resources, which benefits the
allocation of enterprise resources. And enterprises can
compare various resources investment utility value of
different years with their own longitudinally as well as
with their competitors horizontally. Therefore, it is useful
to regulate effectively the investment allocation and
improve the resource utilization efficiency in the actual
operation.
But this article also has some limitations, the
solution to the parameters of utility model obtained by
the annual report, this paper does not presents detailed
analysis about the data in different industries and
enterprises which presents an opportunity for further
research to quantity the value of resources matching.
References
[1]B A Wernerfelt. Resource-based view of the firm [J].
Strategic Management Journal, 1984, 5(2): 171-180.
[2]J B Barney. Firm resources and sustained competitive
[J]. Journal of Management, 1991, 17(1): 99-120.
[3]Ray G, Barney J B, Muhanna W A. Capabilities,
business processes, and competitive advantage:
Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the
resource based view [J]. Strategic Management Journal,
2003, 25(1): 23-37.
[4]Cao Hongjun, Lu Changbo, Wang Yihua. How
resource heterogeneity will influence on firm
performance: Test and analysis about the resources
management capability’s interaction effects [J]. Nankai
Business Review, 2011, 14(4): 25-31. (in Chinese)
[5]Yu Jixin. The economicanalysis on the integration of
the enterprise’ resource [C]// Chinese Ph.D. Thesis Full
Text Database, 2006. (in Chinese)
[6]Chen Yanyan, Wang Guoshun. Firm’s resources, their
interactions and firm’s performance [J]. The Theory and
Practice of Finance and Economics, 2006, 27(139):
101-105.
[7]G David Sirmon, A Michael Hitt, R Duane Ireland.
Managing firm resource in dynamic environments to
create value: Looking inside the black box [J]. Academy
of Management Review, 2007, 32(1): 273-292.
[8]S L Newbert. Emprical research on the resource-based
view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for
future research [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2007,
28(2): 121-146.
[9]Yeoh P L, Roth K. An empirical analysis of sustained
advantage in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry: Impact of
firm resources and capabilities [J]. Strategic
Management Journal, 1999, 20(7): 637-653.
[10]Guo Chunxiang, Li Xusheng. Coordination and
profit sharing strategies for supply chains to perform
corporate social responsibilitoies [J]. Journal of
Industrial Engineering Management, 2011, 25(2):
103-108. (in Chinese)
[11]Barney, Arikan. The resource-based view: Origins
and implications [J]. The Black Well Handbook of
Strategic Management, 2001: 124-188.
[12]Violina P Rindova, Charles J Fombrun. Constructing
competitive advantage: The role of firm constituent inter
actions [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 20(8):
691-710.
[13]R Amit, P J Schoemaker. Strategic assets and
organizational rent [J]. Strategic Management Journal,
1993, 14(1): 33-46.
[14]Zajac Edward J, Kraatz Matthew S, Bresser Rudi K
F. Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative
approach to strategic change [J]. Strategic Management
Journal, 2000, 21(4): 429-453.
[15]N Venkatraman. The concept of fit in strategy
research
toward
verbal
and
statistical
correspondence [J]. Academy of Management Review,
1989, 14(3): 423-444.
[16]Newbert. Value, rareness, competitive advantatage,
and
performance:
A
conceptual-levelempirical
investigation of the resource-based view of the firm [J].
Strategic Management Journal, 2008, 29(7): 745-768.
[17]R Hall. The strategic analysis of intangible resources
[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13: 135-144.
[18]Jeremy Galbreath. Which resources matter the most
to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based
theory [J]. Technovation, 2005, 25(9): 979-987.
[19]S A Lippman, R P Rumelt. A bargaining
perspectiveon resource advantage [J]. Strategic
Management Journal, 2003, 24(11): 1069-1086.
[20]D Aboody, M E Barth, R Kasznik. Revaluations of
fixed assets and future firm performance: Evidence from
the UK [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1999,
26(1): 149-178.
[21]Muller Kolk. Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of
corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and
domestic firm in Mexico [J]. Journal of Management
Studies, 2010, 47(1): 1-26.
[22]Helfat Peteraf. The dynamic resource-based view:
Capability lifecycles [J]. Strategy Management Journal,
2003, 24(10): 997-1010.
[23]BelénVillalonga. Intangible resources, Tobin’s Q,
and sustainability of performance differences [J]. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2004, 54(2):
205- 230.
[24]Stearns Stephen C. Daniel Bernoulli: Evolution and
- 280 -
economics under risk [J]. Journal of Biosciences, 2000,
25(3): 221-228.
[25]Cheng Shengchao, Xie Ruxian, Wu Jianzhong. The
past and the present of utility theory [J]. Systems
Engineering–Theory & Practice, 1994, 12: 16-21. (in
Chinese)
[26]J Marsehak. Rational behavior, uncertain prospects
and measurableutility [J]. Eeonometriea, 1950, 18(2):
111-141.
[27]Gao hongye. Western economics [M]. Beijing:
China Renmin University Press, 2005. (in Chinese)
[28]Lu Zhijun, Li Yaqiong. Calcalation and application
of demand function under utility function [J]. Journal of
Hunan University of Science and Engineering, 2006,
27(5): 22-24. (in Chinese)
[29]Wang Yanzhang. Consumer utility function and
consumer demand [J]. Systems Engineering, 1987, 5(4):
52-61. (in Chinese)
[30]A S Bharadwaj. A resource-based perspective on
information technology capability and firm performance:
An empirical investigation [J]. MIS Quarterly, 2000,
24(1): 169-196.
[31]D Aboody, M E Barth, R Kasznik. Revaluations of
fixed assets and future firm performance: Evidence from
the UK [J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1999,
26(1): 149-178.
[32]Hay A. Donald. The post 1990 Brazilian trade
liberalisation and the performance of large
manufacturing firms: Productivity, market share and
profits [J]. The Economic Journal, 2001, 111(473):
620-641.
[33]R Hall. A framework linking intangible resources
and capabiliites to sustainable competitive advantage [J].
Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 14(8): 607-618.
[34]H Itami, T W Roehl. Mobilizing invisible assets [M].
Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA, 1987.
[35]R Belderbos, M Carree, B Lokshin. Cooperative
R&D and firm performance [J]. Research Policy, 2004,
33(10): 1477-1492.
[36]Fang Jianguo. Research on enterprise technology
innovation based on dynamitic capabilities-take listed
companies of new and high technology industries in our
country as an example [J]. Science & Technology
Progress and Policy, 2010, 27(16): 72-77. (in Chinese)
- 281 -