Theoretical framework for determinants of A/E/C firm value, strategy and continuity: An analysis incorporating corporeal, volitional and knowledge assets

The objective of the research is to ascertain the fundamental differences in value configuration and production logic of architectural, engineering and construction (A/E/C) firms; and then to determine what asset group categories are combined by various categories of firms when the managerial goal is either continuity and longevity of the company or, alternatively, short-term profit maximization. A specific research goal is to frame a methodology that can be used to categorize firm value configurations (production logics) and to determine what asset group classes (physical and financial capital assets as well as organizational, competence and motivational assets) are deployed by different classes of A/E/C firms. The overall structure of the research theme consists of two vital components. First, a “Production Logic Framework” component is adopted from the Stabell-Fjeldstad (1998) model and services as the theoretical lens for A/E/C samples firms listed in the study. The Production Logic Framework has been tested, verified and confirmed by a series of researchers, including, among numerous other references and citations, Amit and Zott (2000), Gottschalk and Solli-Saether (2001) and Tallon et al. (2007). Second, a component that has the appearance of a “periodic chart” of tangible and intangible assets was developed for this research, and was subsequently validated by the 21 person expert panel (19 of the 21 verified the logic and content of the model and 2 suggested very minor adjustments). The organizational “Total Asset Model” of the firm is described and decomposed in various chapters of this thesis, and serves as a basis for expert panel assessment of asset category emphases by differing classes of A/E/C firms. Research outcomes include a series of three dozen “radar” charts showing asset emphases by differing firm classifications, from which patterns of tangible versus intangible asset accumulation and deployment emerge. Among the results determined by the study are: 1) traditional construction entities such as road construction firms emphasize physical and financial (tangible) asset groups in the conduct of their business; and 2) for A/E enterprises; architectural design firms emphasize competence and motivation (intangible) assets; and engineering firms emphasize competence and organizational (intangible) assets in the conduct of their businesses. For firms that concentrate on functioning as both the A/E-of-record and the constructor-of-record, including the design-build and EPC firms in the study, competence and organizational (intangible) assets were deemed as more important among the seven asset categories identified in the model (physical natural, physical produced and financial tangible assets; legal and registrable assets, which may be allocated as either tangible or intangible assets, depending on the circumstances; and organizational, competence and motivational [including leadership] assets, which are designated within the meta-category of intangible assets). Among the benefits of the research are the solidification of a framework within which both tangible and intangible assets (or as more appropriately labeled, corporeal and volitional assets) may be conceptualized and measured for purposes of ongoing and future investigations, and a methodology for benchmarking ongoing investments in a firm’s portfolio of resources. Secondary benefits of the research include the proffering of an employee survey that can be used to formulate a firm statement of activities relating to intangible assets (that is, those activities that would not be shown on the firm’s financial income statement), as well as templates for asset inventory summary sheets (with a tabulation column for depreciation) and a culminating template for assemblage of firm-based non-financial reports, including an intangible assets balance sheet. These latter templates are postulates and have not yet been tested. However, they represent fertile ground for future research.