Wow. This one really made me think about what I’m trying to build. Especially with the four questions. If any of the answers are “no”, we cannot expect monumental gains.
Your emphasis on asset building over tactical imitation really resonated with me. As I was reading, I kept wondering why organisations so often default to copying competitors. My sense is that it’s rarely ignorance alone. It feels like a mix of action bias—the need to visibly “do something” when a competitor succeeds—and internal pressures that reward short-term responses over long-term thinking. Culture, incentives, and time horizons seem to quietly push teams toward tactics, even when leaders intellectually understand they won’t create durable advantage.
Your four filters helped me frame this more clearly and turned the article into a useful thought exercise for me. The idea that an asset must be valuable, rare, hard to copy, and organised to compound feels especially grounding in noisy markets.
I also found myself drawing parallels to investing. Years ago, I learned about economic moats from a hedge fund manager—switching costs, pricing power, unique IP, monopolistic positions, brand. What struck me is how closely those ideas map to your definition of strategic assets. In many ways, it feels like you’re describing moats at the organisational and operational level.
I’d be curious to hear your perspective: do you see strategic assets as the internal mechanisms through which moats are actually built and sustained over time?
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I see assets as a way of building a fortress that competition find impossible to copy and compete with. It’s the purest method to sustain advantage.
Wow. This one really made me think about what I’m trying to build. Especially with the four questions. If any of the answers are “no”, we cannot expect monumental gains.
Thank you, so pleased you found it helpful
Thank you for sharing this piece, Dr. Hallett.
Your emphasis on asset building over tactical imitation really resonated with me. As I was reading, I kept wondering why organisations so often default to copying competitors. My sense is that it’s rarely ignorance alone. It feels like a mix of action bias—the need to visibly “do something” when a competitor succeeds—and internal pressures that reward short-term responses over long-term thinking. Culture, incentives, and time horizons seem to quietly push teams toward tactics, even when leaders intellectually understand they won’t create durable advantage.
Your four filters helped me frame this more clearly and turned the article into a useful thought exercise for me. The idea that an asset must be valuable, rare, hard to copy, and organised to compound feels especially grounding in noisy markets.
I also found myself drawing parallels to investing. Years ago, I learned about economic moats from a hedge fund manager—switching costs, pricing power, unique IP, monopolistic positions, brand. What struck me is how closely those ideas map to your definition of strategic assets. In many ways, it feels like you’re describing moats at the organisational and operational level.
I’d be curious to hear your perspective: do you see strategic assets as the internal mechanisms through which moats are actually built and sustained over time?
Sincerely,
Saurav Mohanty
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I see assets as a way of building a fortress that competition find impossible to copy and compete with. It’s the purest method to sustain advantage.
Thank you. It is based on Resource-based view, a classic of strategic management