Page 82 - Anales RADE vol I n 1
P. 82
Intangible, we used a selection criteria whereby their viability was confirmed in at
least 50% of the companies analyzed subsequently consolidating the data as set
forth in the Table.
In order to select indicators for each key intangible, we used a selection
criterion whereby the indicator was viable for at least 50% of the companies
analyzed. To this end, the combined evaluation tables were prepared as set forth
below.
TABLE 3
FORMAT FOR THE INTEGRATED SELECTION OF INDICATORS
VARIABLES INDICATORS VIABILITY OF THE INDICATOR % COMPANIES
COMPANY 1 COMPANY 2 . . COMPANY N WHERE INDICATOR
IS VIABLE
VARIABLE 1 INDICATOR 1a . . %1a
INDICATOR 1b %1b
%2a
VARIABLE 2 INDICATOR 2a %2b
INDICATOR 2b .
. .
. .
. . . . . . .
VARIABLE N INDICATOR Na %Nº
%Nº
INDICADOR Nº
5. RESULTS
5.1. Key intangibles identified
First, we studied the industry in the context of the fundamental changes and recent
issues it faces using the results of the semi-structured interviews with industry
experts and company executives as well as a review of the industry information
and the documentation provided by the company in connection with the project
(See Table 4).
From this review, we conclude that the industry has undergone significant
changes in recent years due to privatization, introduction of competition,
globalization, diversification and the increase of regulatory pressures in terms of
the environment, taxation and in other areas specific to the industry.
These changes have brought a enhanced need to manage intangible assets
as well as a transformation of companies in the industry particularly in the areas of
marketing, followed by generation and distribution to a lesser extent. Companies
have had to improve customer service, introduce new technological alternatives,
adjust processes and procedures, design complementary processes, maintain
levels of efficiency and quality control and improve communication with various
third-parties. All these requirements have resulted in the need to develop other
competencies in terms of human and organizational resources.
Leandro Cañibano Calvo 82
least 50% of the companies analyzed subsequently consolidating the data as set
forth in the Table.
In order to select indicators for each key intangible, we used a selection
criterion whereby the indicator was viable for at least 50% of the companies
analyzed. To this end, the combined evaluation tables were prepared as set forth
below.
TABLE 3
FORMAT FOR THE INTEGRATED SELECTION OF INDICATORS
VARIABLES INDICATORS VIABILITY OF THE INDICATOR % COMPANIES
COMPANY 1 COMPANY 2 . . COMPANY N WHERE INDICATOR
IS VIABLE
VARIABLE 1 INDICATOR 1a . . %1a
INDICATOR 1b %1b
%2a
VARIABLE 2 INDICATOR 2a %2b
INDICATOR 2b .
. .
. .
. . . . . . .
VARIABLE N INDICATOR Na %Nº
%Nº
INDICADOR Nº
5. RESULTS
5.1. Key intangibles identified
First, we studied the industry in the context of the fundamental changes and recent
issues it faces using the results of the semi-structured interviews with industry
experts and company executives as well as a review of the industry information
and the documentation provided by the company in connection with the project
(See Table 4).
From this review, we conclude that the industry has undergone significant
changes in recent years due to privatization, introduction of competition,
globalization, diversification and the increase of regulatory pressures in terms of
the environment, taxation and in other areas specific to the industry.
These changes have brought a enhanced need to manage intangible assets
as well as a transformation of companies in the industry particularly in the areas of
marketing, followed by generation and distribution to a lesser extent. Companies
have had to improve customer service, introduce new technological alternatives,
adjust processes and procedures, design complementary processes, maintain
levels of efficiency and quality control and improve communication with various
third-parties. All these requirements have resulted in the need to develop other
competencies in terms of human and organizational resources.
Leandro Cañibano Calvo 82