Page 11 - Intangible value

THE RELATIVE PRICES OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
since the beginning of the 1980s
THE GLOBAL PRICE DEVELOPMENT (estimate)
OF INTANGIBLE PRODUCTS
Software, digital content, databases,
intellectual property rights and ICT supported services
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
create a more in-depth picture. It is estimat- ed that protected intellectual property rights account for one half of intangible invest- ments in the United Kingdom.4 According to the source, the most signi cant protection measures include a head start over the com- petitors, business secrets and complexity, whose role as protection measures instead of legal frameworks is likely to be on the in- crease. In the future, traditional comparisons between patent portfolios may prove less signi cant when comparing values of com- panies or products, and the appeal of eco- systems related to the brand may increase.
The price development in world trade puts severe cost pressure on the production of goods. At the same time, intangible services have a chance to increase their value. This is due to, of course, the increasing value of ser- vices offered to the customer. With the help of digital tools, services can be delivered ef - ciently across the world and copied for every- one to use. Marketing services may become a driver of productivity instead of delaying the development of the national economy.
Combining physical and intangible invest- ments, the different alternatives to create customer value and operating in networks reform the boundaries between companies, knowledge sharing and the rules of value creation. An industrial plant and the scale of its operation is no longer necessarily the most important source of value creation in the centre of the customer process, which is becoming increasingly service-intensive.
With regard to the national economy, the essential factor is how quickly and ef ciently these practices spread in companies and how well the operating environment supports the transition to utilise intangibles in companies. At the same time, we have to contemplate how the new geography of value creation will develop and what Finland’s role is in this de- velopment. Global platforms and ecosystems accumulate value in ways that are different from the traditional regional delivery chains.
The share of intangible value creation sectors in the USA’s national economy has surpassed physical goods production even if the classi -
cation did not apply to work tasks and even if, for example, telecommunications services were classi edaspartofphysicalproduction.5 There is no reason to presume that development in Finland would follow a different path.
Comparisons in competitiveness show that Finland continues to be successful in creat- ing human capital and probably also in mak- ing use of it. Expertise and development of technology are focus areas in policies even though the national economy has to be con- densed. High quality of training, relevance and usability of results as a counterbalance to the accelerating speed in which competenc- es become outdated are the key conditions for future development. The transition from a career based on one skill to the model of life- long learning challenges the whole of society
Does Finland have the ability to take advantage of the opportunities in intangible value creation and to grasp, for example, the new opportunities created by digitalisation? As we know, it is one thing to present oneself as a potential success story but quite another to gain broad-ranging advantages in productivity across sectors. And are companies able to transfer exibly to ser- vice-oriented interaction with the customer and deepen relational capital at the level of business activities in practice? Requirements are increas- ingly directed at key individuals within compa- nies. It is through them that the performance of companies, sectors and the national economy either reaches the forefront or keeps on follow- ing its previous gloomy trend.
If policies can encourage companies to grasp the opportunities in intangible value creation, we urgently need to build a framework for im- plementing this. It is desirable that reforming the content of innovation policy show as a strategic orientation to value creation by companies and their owners.
1 BIS Research Paper number 74. 2012.
2 https://www.tekes.fi/globalassets/julkaisut/ainee-
ton.pdf
3 Petri Rouvinen Etla 2014
4 UK Patent Office 2014/36
5 Athena Alliance 2015 http://www.athenaalliance.
org/weblog/
6 Marja Toivonen: Tutkimustuloksista arvoa liiketoi-
mintaan, Tekes 2013
11
20 40 60 80 100
Indicative outline, Petri Rouvinen / Etla