Hallo Cristina,

IC is a dynamic and continuous process of encompassing knowledge assets and intangible resources. Education institutions with limited resources are able to generate IC within a time frame. Firms have to prioritize the dynamics of IC according to their priorities.

IC = Human Capital + Structural Capital + Social Capital + Technological Capital

The following link will support your thought:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31068854/MDBontis.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1431272280&Signature=MITDGWrr8%2BwysRu4CEuFMDvX%2Bas%3D&response-content-disposition=inline

Dear Cristina Devecchi ,

While past economies depended on use of land, natural resources, equipment and capital for the creation of value, our information economy will depend on application of knowledge. Intellectual capital has also been defined as the difference between a firm’s market value and the cost of replacing its assets. Components of intellectual capital consist of human capital, structural capital and external (customer) capital. If managers manage knowledge effectively, their organization will enhance their intellectual capital. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_capital

http://www.eiminstitute.org/current-magazine/volumn-4-issue-5-october-2010/intellectual-capital-a-human-resources-perspective

Consider what Hilary Landorf (professor at Florida International University and a dear colleague) has to say in this article. Education for sustainable human development: Towards a definition by H. Landorf, S. Doscher, T. Rocco published in Theory and Research in Education 07/2008; 6(2):221-236. DOI:10.1177/1477878508091114 

They argue that education for sustainable human development

as educational practice that results in the enhancement of human well-being, con-

ceived in terms of the expansion of individuals’ agency, capabilities and participa-

tion in democratic dialogue, both for now and for future generations. We conclude

that incorporating Amartya Sen’s human capability approach as the basis of ESD

will provide the clarity of direction and purpose needed for the transformation of

curriculum, pedagogy and assessment

Hi Cristina,

What are your purpose and your interest? What is the intended application of the concept of Intellectual Capital? These issues are important, because I’d say that Intellectual Capital has long been a metaphor in search of a theory.

Academic IC literature is often trying to empirically prove that investments in IC are profitable – a quest that seems as inconclusive as finding the Holy Grail. The original purpose of external presentation and reporting externally remains as probably the liveliest consulting field, combined with a variety of services to assist the organisation in ‘managing’ its Intellectual Capital. Hence, any definition will do, as long as you agree with that author’s purpose. Is your purpose to use the concept:

- To present/report the organization’s IC externally?

- For internal management control (top-down as in the Balanced Score Card)?

- For internal learning; highlighting the organization’s IC for bottom-up dialogue?

A reasonably accurate brief history of the roots of IC as an organizational concept up until 2000 is found in Patrick H. Sullivan’s book: Value-driven Intellectual Capital. A link to the history page below:

Dear Karl,

thank you so much for your answer which highlights many of the issues and challenges i found. I am interested in applying the notion of IC in universities. There is some literature about it, mainly in relation to the reporting of IC, but i find it rather limited to the way in which universities are developing. I also think that there is to some extent a general confusion and possible misunderstanding about the nature of IC. Managers and academics see it rather differently. My intention in asking the question was to see how academics and experts in the field define it. i am to give a  paper at an educational conference on it in September and the reviewers' comments clearly showed they did not understand the meaning of it.

I suppose all three purposes you mentioned are valid ones. Unfortunately, one always has the impression that the only one that matters is the management control and the top down one at that.

However, that should not be necessarily the case. I am therefore wondering whether one can combine a top down approach of IC management with an internal learning purpose (staff development) which is fit for an academic reality where academics are proud of their expertise and like to self-manage their knowledge. Are the two incompatible? Can actually a top down approach (like a BSC) actually serve to steer the learning one needs to develop in the organisation? After all, the learning and growth quarter of the scorecard points in this direction. and could it be that we have not managed to find the Holy Grail because we use the BSC only to measure what we can measure and thus be impatient with the time it takes to teach, learn and put that learning to some use?

As universities, at least in the UK but more widely, are asked to teach, research, co-create jobs and economic wealth and show social impact, questions about how they manage knowledge will become only more important and pressing. I feel that the old ways are not sufficient any longer and the present (and past) business driven managerial logic does not fit and suit academic practice either.

Have you ever done research on IC in universities? I know universities in Austria have to  report their IC, but i am not aware that they have gone beyond the reporting stage.

anyway, thank you so much for your answer - it is good food for thought and it will keep me thinking for a while!

Dear Hussein and Ann,

• thank you for your contribution. Hussein, your definition fits exactly with what i know about IC. Ann, your contribution fits exactly with how i think IC, and in particular the human capital component of it, should be supported. Ann, you have also hit the nail on the head and made me think about the fundamental difference between business and education: while the former seeks exploitation of resources (not necessarily in the truly negative meaning of the word), the latter seeks enhancement and development of the resources. Again, some really good food for thought here. Thank you so much.

Hi Cristina,

I agree with you that the top down control approach dominates. I did  a fair deal of consulting on measuring intangibles 10-15 years ago - always advocating the learning bottom-up approach. However, I generally came away disappointed, sometimes even appalled. The initiative may have started as learning and bottom up, but after a while it invariably ended with one of two approaches: A PR-report with no internal effect or an internal BSC-like top-down control system. None of them yields much value .

The internal control is system at best just counter-productive, but it can develop into something outright evil  when extended to measuring on individuals. This is unfortunately attractive for managers - also in universities. The  PR approach is "only" a waste of resources.

 I still believe that there is scope for a true learning approach, but it requires vigorous monitoring from  some one at the top embracing that value system.

I attach the history  link again. See if it works this time

http://www.sveiby.com/articles/icmmovement.htm

Hi Cristina,

This is a pdf "http://www.apira2013.org/past/apira1998/archives/pdfs/25.pdf", I think this my help you to answer you question

Hallo, To my humble understanding, by augmenting their learning capabilities, Universities can increase their IC over a span of time. In developed world, universities are given tasks to promote and report IC but in developing countries, no such practice is in place. Literature however, demonstrates multiple green pastures for organizations about IC.

 In Pakistan, universities are still in quest to create and increase their IC. By offering diverse services such as innovative curriculums, researching new areas, patronizing research financially and non-financially within a specified time-frame can raise academic, economic and social impact of universities. Theoretically this may sound a wishful thinking generally economic wealth is focused in universities. This has been my practical experience in Pakistan where my university supported my research team in a year time with set tasks. The result emerged with success outcome both in knowledge expansion and positive change in conceiving new ways. In practical, academic practices in universities harp on the same old string.

 In this vibrant age, by risk taking, experimentation, and participative decision making, universities can boost IC.

Dear Cristina,Put

Put simply, intellectual capital is ''the value of a company or organization's employee knowledge, business training and any proprietary information that may provide the company with a competitive advantage''. Given the focus of yout planned presentation, I will recommend the HR perspective to the subject. In this wise, you may wish to consult an article by Enterprise Information Management Institute by clicking the links below:

http://www.eiminstitute.org/current-magazine/volumn-4-issue-5-october-2010/intellectual-capital-a-human-resources-perspective

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=519015

http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/pub_press/press_releases/20091029/WIPO/Introduction_Goran_Roos.pdf

All the best.

Dr. Abolo

Dear all,

you have all been terrific help and i very much appreciate your generosity and stimulating comments. let me answer one by one:

- Tarek, thank you for the paper. Indeed how to measure the intangibles is a very important issue. In UK universities we have the Research Excellence Framework which measures research outputs or other systems to measure the quality of teaching. Unfortunately, all such methods are retrospective and prone to all sort of problems. I think that what we need is a system to develop the potential of IC for future growth. Do you happen to know the date of publication for the link you sent me, by any chance?

- Muhammed, you make some very interesting points about what goes on in universities in developing countries but i think you might be a touch over-optimistic about Universities in the developed (if so we want to call it) world to have a clear understanding of IC or to know how to use and manage the potential of human knowledge effectively.

- Karl, the paper outlining the history of IC is very useful. I have drawn my own history but there are things which i did not pick up. Interestingly, the paper does not list Kaplan and Norton's BSC while other authors do. I have mixed-feeling about it. Am i correct in thinking that the BSC is more of a management tool of resources one is sure to have or a way to identify the performance indicators but it does not provide much help in assessing the actual knowledge resources or provide a way of how to use them? What about the Skandia navigator? I have actually recently looked more into the dynamic capabilities literature (Teece et al). This is probably because of my background in teaching and education and my interest since my PhD in the effective utilisation of knowledge resources in schools. This leads me easily into the field of organisational learning and staff development. Yet, 'teaching' academics is not the easiest of tricks - they are rather demanding and critical learners!

Dear Emanuel,

i just saw your reply now. Thank you for the links. I like the idea of integrating competences which is timely language. I suppose comptences, skills, behaviours, attitudes and so on would all come under the human resource aspect?

Hi Cristina,

The Skandia Navigatior was developed by combining the presentation format of the BSC with the theoretical content produced in Sweden by a group of accountants and financial analysts, "the KONRAD group". We had published our work in Swedish in 1988, with the title  "Den Osynliga Balansräkningen".and added an English translation  in1990, "The Invisible Balance Sheet". I add a link to my on-line library below. Please click on the book with the Swedish title. From there you can select the English translation.

I also add a link to an article, where I discuss similarities and differences between the BSC and the Intangible Assets Monitor. The most important difference is in the perspective of what constitutes an organisation. The starting point of the IAM is that the the human being is the only true value creator in any organisation. From there, the indicators are designed.

Finally, I attach a link to a conversation I had with one of my best sources of inspiration, Charles Armstrong, titled "Learn to measure to learn".

http://www.sveiby.com/library.html

http://www.sveiby.com/articles/BSCandIAM.html

http://www.sveiby.com/articles/measuretolearn.pdf

Hello:

visit this site, you may find some thing goog:

http://www.opf.slu.cz/vvr/akce/turecko/pdf/Akpinar.pdf

Christina

See under my publications my Ph D thesis.

Cristina: You are a gifted correspondent. You have obviously read and processed each person's contribution. This discourse is, in my opinion, a good example of scholarship.

Ann

Dear Cristina

You can download my conference paper via the link as following. It may be helpful. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280319175_QUALITY_OF_INTELLECTUAL_CAPITAL_DISCLOSURE

Mahmoud

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Please refer to,

Information Management Model for Intellectual Capital of HEIs in Oman: Theoretical Quantitative Approach and Practical Results. J. of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.1-38. (World Scientific).

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219649218500053?src=recsys&journalCode=jikm