Overview of International Estate Planning †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Overview of International Estate Planning. Answer: Introduction The management of corporate real estate enables to enhance the use of the real estate assets so that it can lead to the attainment of the results within the companies those are a non-real estate. Various researchers have been undertaken in the field of commercial, residential, as well as commercial real estate, the studies on infrastructure asset management is lacking. As per Collins Dictionary infrastructure can be defined as the fixed capital stock in the country that includes school, roads, and factories and viewed as an economic growth determinant. Just like other real estate assets, the enhancement of infrastructure is in the nature of capital intensive. Moreover, infrastructure assets surpass the complexity level that makes it a part of the real assets of traditional nature (Svejenova et. al, 2010). Firstly, the infrastructure production is steep in nature and hence, the concept of increasing the return to scale can be noted. This means that there is a strong tendency towards m onopoly and the regulation is strong in this industry. In the past few years, most of the industrialized world has witnessed immense challenges that are linked to the management of the infrastructure assets. Such challenges contain the infrastructure that is aging in nature, funding that is inadequate and short-term stress on the political scenario, less information on the infrastructure, globalization and the requirement to adhere to various demand of the stakeholders. This has to lead to a problem in terms of performance for the infrastructure that is owned by the government (Brown, 2005). Further, there have been many cases of the revival of the institutional options for the infrastructure provision that contains a merge of competitive restructuring and development of methods of regulatory nature (Kennedy, 2007). When it comes to the changing scenario of the business, it is imperative for the infrastructure organization to enhance the investments that are being made so that the capital can be reduced together with the expenditure of operating nature and enhance the total performance of the organization (Brown, 2005). Literature pertaining to strategic management suggests that to shed light on the performance of the organization it is essential that the focus should also be provided on the factors that are internal to the organization and even the structure of the industry. As per Ravichandran et al. (2005) it is put to the argument that the theory of resource-based and the extensions with the focus on the resources of the firm can lead to the proper theoretical lens to evaluate how factors can be booster in terms of competitive advantage. An organization can be a gainer and attain performance of a top-notch when it contains the correct skills. In tune to this, the challenge remains to the org anization in association with the utilization of the resources in an optimal manner among the initiatives that are competitive in nature so that skills of relevant nature can be attracted (Mckeo, 2008). Therefore, it is the need of the hour to trace core capabilities that will make a difference in terms of infrastructure, as well as the performance of the asset. The main aim of the paper is to shed light on the conceptual framework so that identification of the skills needs to be done when it comes to the management of the infrastructure assets. This paper will shed light on the discussion required to adopt an approach that is strategic in nature so that the performance can be enhanced. The literature we then examined in the light of the prevalent situation. Based on the knowledge, an appropriate resource based view is argued. Lastly, the conceptual framework is identified for strategic infrastructure. Strategy and Performance The influential works of enthusiasts help us to understand the basic concept of the area of strategic management. Mutually they help us to understand the censorious concepts and thesis in strategy, in which the strategy influences performance. They also emphasize on the external opportunities and internal power, the concept follows that strategy is followed by structure, the real difference between the making and implementation of the concept and the effective role of strategic management (Smallwood Panowyk, 2005). The restrained study of strategy development is mostly derived from the design school and planning school which is employed to find the use of internal hoard to compare with the external risk and opportunities. In 1980s the main focus of the strategy analysis was to create a connection between strategy and external environment of a business. The best example to understand the topic is to read competitive strategy by Michael Porter which is considered to be the most persua sive contribution to the area of strategic management. Porter used the information provided by the Industrial-Organizational Economics to construct a framework of general strategies and industrial scanning. The intermodal theory of this policy is that the performance of an organization is the chief function of the industrial environment in which it regulates and as the structure of industry it directs the strategy, which in return governs the performance (Nag et. al, 2007). The strategy can, therefore, be disregarded and thereafter performance can be explained by the industry structure. In contradiction, the connection between the organizations strategy and resources, skill have suffered comparative disregard. During 1990s, there was a wave of recovery in the application of organizations resources because of the development of organizational strategies. This helped to enumerate the resource-based view once again. RBV is a plan that is a crucial pool of recourses and capabilities, an d these resources and capabilities are the main elements of strategy and performance. In the process of strategy formulation, RBV does not take the way of Indian Organizational Economics theory. IOE theorists were in a notion that the organization's performance was related to the industrial structure closely and also that the firm was the provider of all resources between product and market opportunities. As per this theory, the vital aspects of the work are directed towards making a place amidst the competitions in the industry (Jay William, 2018). This is also famously known as the positioning school of strategy development. The other view known as the resource-based view fails to identify with this relationship. Resource-based view is popular for its theory for differentiating between the internal resources and the other determinants of the competition, which majorly comprise of location; other regulatory and technical factors (Mulcaster, 2009). But the specialists of the RBV th eory were of the view that the competencies which were generated internally were of primary importance to the competitive performance of the company. Importance of RBV for Organisation that pertains to InfrastructureIn an aggressive and inconsistent environment, the theorists found that there are very fewer chances that one could actually plan the future because of inconsistent technological changes.The forceful strategies will not be fit for the organization as it will create a tension in the firm. The tension increases when the there are technological advancements made in the industry but the firm still uses the old and rugged resources to work (Mulcaster, 2009). The firm will not have the capability to match with its competitors till it advances its piece of technology. Therefore theorists argued that the basic direction for an organization to work is provided by the internal resources and capability of the firm. Therefore when the external environment of a firm is not in a good state, the firm may use its internal resources to define its name in the market.All types of organization should create value to make their presence kn own in the market. Insistent advantage may help a firm to make a better experience for customers and thus helping the firm to grow. Theorists presented two known schemes of the origination of competitive advantage: the division between positional and kinetic and between homogeneous and heterogeneous (Smith et. al, 2010). Positional advantages are basically ownership or access based and is often non-volatile like a. Managing talent superior, skilled and dedicated employees, superior associated culture; b. Size-based advantages like size capabilities, scale economies, and economy of experience; c. Provide good control and favorable access to the distributor. Presently the advantages include (a) capability of finding the valuable customers and to make and see whether there are market opportunities. (b) Use of such capabilities that helps in improving the flexibility, speed, creativity, and efficiency of the process that is adopted in the organization. (c) The capability that helps to mobilize the employees of the organization encourages the learning process and encouraging changes that would have a positive impact. (d)In an organization there are different departments and personnels having different knowledge and these people have a different level of competencies, the strategic capabilities help to create, integrate and maintain coordination between them (Smith et. al, 2010).In the recent years, it has been observed that there were many challenges and difficulties faced by the infrastructure due to deregulation and privatization. This has also resulted in alteration of the business dynamics and also there existed certain uncertainties. It was suggested that there would be improved, sustainable and superior performance observed due to the kinetic advantage. There always exists a rival for the company in the market which can either compete in the same manner (homogenous) or different manner (heterogeneous). It was seen in the past that the infrastructure organiza tion has always adopted homogenous competition. However, in the times of privatization, it was observed that the company competed heterogeneously, this was because during this time the entire attention was paid to the customers and the organizations were accountable for the results. In the overall discussion, we can say that there lies a great importance of the RBV paradigm in making the infrastructural organization better. The RBV concept comprises of the kinetic advantage as well as the heterogeneous advantage. In addition, we will also see that there will be no constant competitive advantage in the long run because the organization will start imitating the products of others (Zehir et. al, 2006). The RBV has helped in developing the framework of the organization that has resulted in the improvement of their performance. Asset management is the area which always has a scope of betterment. It has been said that while implementing asset management one should always keep the thought of improvement in mind so that the effects of the procedure can be managed steadily. Asset management has been said to have a complex nature, in order to simplify these complexities, we divided the infrastructure businesses into three major components as the asset owner, asset manager and lastly the service provider (Klueger, 2012). This classification enables an entity to have exclusive knowledge in one's department, resulting in perfection due to practice. This helps divide the responsibilities into planning and execution, resulting in the better response. We have discussed the roles and responsibilities of the components below: Firstly, let us discuss the roles and responsibilities of the top management. The main role of the top management is to set the rules, values, strategy, and structure for everyone to follow. They help provide the asset management the asset cost, the maximum level of risk and the level of returns to be earned (Mckeown, 2012). Secondly, there is the asset manager. The main role and responsibility of the asset manager are to concentrate on the strategies and make the relevant decision. The major role is to maximize the values of the asset under their management in order to ensure high returns to the company and the investor. It is under the asset managers control on how and when to spend the monies (Olsen, 2012). Lastly, there is the service provider. The main role of the service provider is in handling the administration work including the management of the clients, so that smooth service can be provided. The primary responsibility to set the strategic corporate goal rests with the asset owner. These major points serve as the map for the asset manager helping him to allocate the asset cost, risks involved, limits on the risks and also the required returns. It is essential that the goals be based as per the company policy so that the best of resources can be allocated to the asset in order to ensure maximum return to the investor. (Moncrieff, 2014) The asset manager plays a very vital role in all this. He holds the most important resource of this transaction, which is the infrastructure asset (Ravichandran Now, it is the duty of the asset manager to make sure that the goals of the asset management and that of the investor sync, in order to generate high returns and long-term relationship both for the investor and the company. Therefore the asset mange needs to make sure that the goals of asset management and the company go hand in hand .Above we have discussed the goals of the infrastr ucture asset management and who is responsible to set such goals. Now in order to achieve these goals we need to formulate strategies which will help the company and the asset manager to achieve these goals. The strategies involved in asset management are nothing more than the process of managing the assets efficiently in order to achieve desired goals (Freedman, 2013). It has been said that the asset management is a process of handling the asset for its life cycle and also that the proper management processes are essential for the same. This thought helps our result that the asset management is all in one business process which consolidates all the functions of the business into one, which helps to follow through the business plans. Hence it is significant to recognize the major processes of the asset management so that the results from the infrastructure asset generated can be maximized. (Demil Lecoq, 2010) The life cycle of the infrastructure asset can be classified into three major heads which are asset planning, asset creation, and asset operation. The core processes of the asset management involve work starting and ending at the customers. They are assisted by other functional activities. There are also other processes which are carried on in the organization which is related to the life cycle of the infrastructure asset. In this context, a few scholars have stated that there are few processes which would fail to provide the competitive advantage to the organization (David et. al, 2012). The internal processes having the most impact on value creation and decision making should be sorted. Core process has also been defined as one of the most important processes which have the direct impact on the quality of success and customer feedback ( Itami Nishino, 2010). We know that the economic and technological market is dynamic. The asset managers are responsible to segregate the processes as per there outcomes under these dynamic circumstances (Doz Kosonen, 2010). The processes which help provide success should be in sync with the business goals of the organization and help create value for the infrastructure organization. It has been proposed by a lot of experts that in order to have a competitive advantage, the organizations should keep improving the core processes. There are a set of many attributes which are required to be developed in order to achieve the asset management goals. It is the responsibilities of the asset managers to identify the challenges and address them in order to carry out the processes smoothly (Too et. al, 2006). In our discussion above, we have discussed the asset management processes. These processes are also associated with the capabilities. These set of capabilities are abstract and indispensable. There is no set of capabilities which are fixed or allocated to a given organization. Also, it has been stated that these capabilities have their individual costs and benefits (Cameron , 2014). The managers are responsible in order to identify most appropriate capability as per the requirements and implement them with the processes in order to achieve maximum benefits . If the managers are able to develop capabilities appropriate to the processes of the asset management, then they will help the asset managers in order achieve the goals and perform better in the future. Conclusion This paper has stressed on the requirement to consider a strategic approach directed towards asset management of the infrastructure provided the ever increment pressure to increase the performance. An approach of resource based view is recommended when the changes are dynamic in nature and happens in the business environment (Kemp, 2008). It is suggested by the resource-based paradigm that to enhance the infrastructure assets performance, it is utmost essential to trace the processes. However, the application of such a process is still pending. Hence, the paper majorly stress on literature that derives from the field of strategic management and leads to the initial step in the application of the concept to the environment that is complex in scenario of the management of infrastructure asset. It needs to be noted that skills are linked within the organization fabric and hence, is difficult for the management to trace. Depending on the argument, a conceptual framework has been dedicate d that spots the issues in a systematic manner that requires clarification before the separation of core skills required for infrastructure asset management. It is expected that there will be a potent tool to trace the skills that are vital and required in the process of strategic management of the infrastructure assets. References Brown, C 2005. A holistic approach to the management of electrical assets within an Australian supply utility, Thesis, Type, Sydney Graduate School of Management, University of Western Sydney. Cameron, B.T 2014,Using responsive evaluation in Strategic Management, Strategic Leadership Review vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 22-27. David, B, David, S.S Mark S 2012, Economics of Strategy,John Wiley Sons Demil, B Lecoq, X 2010, Business model evolution: In search for dynamic consistency, Long range planning, vol. 43, pp. 227-246 Doz, Y.L Kosonen, M 2010, Embedding strategic agility, Long range planning, vol. 43, pp. 370-382 Freedman, L 2013, Strategy, Oxford University Press Itami, H., Nishino, K 2010, Killing two birds with one stone: Profit for now and learning for the future, Long range planning vol. 43, pp. 364-369 Jay, B. B William S. H 2018, Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, Pearson Press Kemp, R. L 2008, Strategic Planning for Local Government: A Handbook for Officials and Citizens, McFarland and Co., Inc, Jefferson, NC, USA, and London Kennedy, J 2007, Asset Management Council: Model and Definition, ICOMS Asset Management Conference 2007: Total Asset Management Sydney. Klueger, R. F 2012, Overview of International Estate Planning, Valley Lawyer. Mckeown, M 2012, The Strategy Book, FT Prentice Hall Moncrieff, J 2014, Is strategy making a difference?, Long Range Planning Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 273276. Mulcaster, W.R 2009, Three Strategic Frameworks, Business Strategy Series vol. 10, no.1, , pp 6875, 2009. Nag, R, Ham, B, Chen, M.J 2007, What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field, Strategic Management Journal vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 935955 Olsen, E 2012, Strategic Planning Kit for Dummies, John Wiley Sons. Ravichandran, T Lertwongsatien, C 2005, Effect of information system resources and capabilities on firm performance: A resource-based perspective, Journal of Management Information System, Vol. 21, pp. 237. Smallwood, N Panowyk, M 2005, Building Capabilities, Executive Excellence, vol. 22, pp. 17. Smith, W.K., Binns, A Tushman, M.L 2010, Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously, Long range planning, vol. 43, pp. 448-461 Svejenova, S., Planellas, M Vives, L 2010, An individual business model in the making: Achefs quest for creative freedom, Long range planning vol. 43, pp. 408-430 Too, E., Betts, M Kumar, A 2006, A Strategic Approach to Infrastructure Asset Management, BEE Postgraduate Research Conference, Infrastructure 2006: Sustainability Zehir, C., Acar, A. Z. Tanriverdi, H 2006. Identifying organisational capabilities as predictors of growth and business performance, The Business Review vol. 5, no.2, pp. 109-116