Loading...

Measuring and Evaluating Intellectual Capital

Benefitting from the perception of hidden assets

Bachelor Thesis 2010 75 Pages

Business economics - Personnel and Organisation

Excerpt

Table of contents

List of abbreviations

List of figures

List of tables

1. Introduction
1.1. Point of departure
1.2. Research scope and delimitations
1.3. Motivation
1.4. Methodology and structure of this thesis

2. Discovering the fundamental terminologies
2.1. Intangible Assets
2.2. Intellectual Capital
2.3. Knowledge
2.4. The rise of Intellectual Capital
2.5. The knowledge worker
2.6. Organizational knowledge creation
2.7. Distribution and protection of knowledge
2.8. Human Resources Management

3. Measurement of Intellectual Capital
3.1. Direct Intellectual Capital Methods (DIC)
3.2. Market Capitalization Methods (MCM)
3.3. Return on Assets Methods (ROA)
3.4. Scorecards Methods (SC)

4. Selective measuring methods
4.1. The IC Audit by Brooking
4.2. Intangible Assets Monitor by Sveiby
4.3. General measurement problems

5. Human Resources Management benefit potential
5.1. Reporting
5.2. Benchmarking
5.3. Self-Awareness and enhancement potential

6. Conclusion and Research Outlook

Bibliography

List of abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

List of figures

Figure 1: Intangible assets contribution to the company market value

Figure 2: Company Value Overview

Figure 3: SVEIBY’s Intellectual Capital classification model

Figure 4: ROOS’ Intellectual Capital classification model

Figure 5: BROOKING’s Intellectual Capital classification model

Figure 6: Knowledge Creation Process

Figure 7: Types of knowledge organizations

Figure 8: The IC Audit Process

Figure 9: Targeting assets

Figure 10: Intangible Asset Monitor

Figure 11: Exemplaric model of an IC Statement

List of tables

Table 1: Categorization of separately identifiable intangible assets

Table 2: Resource Classification of Human Capital

Table 3: Intellectual Capital factors

Table 4: Symbols, data and information

Table 5: Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

Table 6: Knowledge Attributes

Table 7: Approaches to knowledge distribution

Table 8: Stereotypes of personnel management and human resources management

Table 9: Audit methods for market centered assets

Table 10: Audit methods for intellectual property assets

Table 11: Audit methods for human-centered assets

Table 12: Audit methods for infrastructure assets

Table 13: Indexed and coupled asset

Table 14: Monitoring indices over time

Table 15: Part of Celemi’s IAM for Personnel Competence from 2000 2002

1. Introduction

1.1. Point of departure

The development from the industrial society to an information and knowledge based society is mainly characterized by the evolution of information and knowledge based technologies and the possibilities to share and gain information within a globalized world. In order to create products and to provide services which are competitive in the market it can be assumed that the importance of obtaining competitive advantages, such as process or product based knowledge and protecting and open up new resources for innovation is permanently rising.

In the last century labor has been only considered as an economic production factor in context with land and capital following the classical economic approach of Adam Smith. Today we have realized that a main source for innovation is based on a company’s labor workforce also known as human resources.

There is a scientific consensus that on average 80% of a company’s market value is based on intangible assets and that knowledge is getting a strategic resource and a critical success factor for competitiveness.[1] A straight trend of emerging business and knowledge networks which have an important impact on corporate success[2] are supporting this aspect.

That implies a distinct constraint for modern management to capture and evaluate information regarding intangible company assets in order to be able to operationalize actions to support the strategy. The fact that management decisions are taken based on information which is corresponding on 20% of the company value is unsatisfying and may lead into the wrong direction.

There are several problems which occur if management decides to disclose these “hidden assets”[3]. Based on the individual company and its core business, assets have to be identified and evaluated in a proper way. Starting with the choice of a proper measuring and evaluating method decisions have to be made which information should be kept confidential and which information would be advantageous to provide.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Intangible assets contribution to the company market value[4]

A problem is that most company’s management did not realize the importance of their intangibles, yet and that traditional accounting systems are limited to embed intellectual capital as most intangible assets are classified as being only expenses. This leads to effects of under-evaluation, short-term focus on financial performance and strategic faults by cutting expenditures for research and development or by focusing on costs instead of core business and product innovation for example.[5]

A study from the HANS-BÖCKLER-STIFTUNG analyzed the German DAX-30[6] companies in order to disclose what they report on intellectual capital, how and where. It can be said that the quality of data and grade of detail varies much from company to company and that information about intellectual capital is sometimes reported as a part of the financial report or corporate responsibility report. As there is no duty to publish intellectual capital in a defined way every company defines their own statement on intellectual capital, yet.[7]

Those companies defining their workforce quality and their organizational intelligence as being the biggest value driver need to state out the quality into numbers. Management decision are based upon KPI’s and balances and often driven by financial statements as today’s top management often comes from the finance departments.

1.2. Research scope and delimitations

Within this thesis qualitative research is made to explore the framework of intellectual capital by examining the basic fundamentals. These fundamentals are knowledge and intangible assets which lead in sum to intellectual capital. Within this work deals with the questions why intellectual capital has been become important for today’s economy and how it can be measured and evaluated. The work provides different basic approaches for measuring and evaluating intellectual capital and leads to a description of two detailed described approaches within the class of indicator-based models which are used in practice and not only part of a theoretical framework. Furthermore the benefit and enhancement potential of knowledge about an organizations intellectual capital is displayed and how Human Resources Management can benefit from the gained information.

This thesis will not show all existing different measurement approaches in detail due to the defined limitations of this work. Literature and sources which have been taken into consideration are limited to English and German language. Empiric evidence cases are assumed to be successfully done in the past by previous authors and were not in focus of critical analysis. HR-Strategies and operative tasks which can be derived from the Intellectual Capital are off-scope and need further research to be established in a proper way. As this work focuses the Intellectual Capital theme from an HRM point of view it disregards the accountant based view with focal point on balances and accounting practices.

1.3. Motivation

The motivation for this work came up during the studies as there is a gap between those values which accountants consider in accounting practices to the real or fair value of a company which considers all kind of intangible assets, such as human capital for example. Therefore it was a need to understand the framework of intellectual capital and its components which lead to this work. A further motivation point was the unsatisfying and paradox behavior of financial markets (e.g. stock exchange) which rewarded massive lay-offs in companies with rising share prices. This indicated a missing awareness of the value of people or staff and a reduction as simple cost drivers. This work tries to express that a loss of workers is also a loss of knowledge in organization and finally leads to a decreasing company value which is the exact opposite of the reaction of financial markets. This theme got in focus because it can be assumed that there is a critical need to understand those hidden values in order to steer an organization properly and also to be able to evaluate organizations or parts of it by considering all types of assets, also the intangible ones, for example for the Due Diligence within M&A transactions.

1.4. Methodology and structure of this thesis

In order to get an first overview of the existing knowledge in the research field all accessible sources as books, magazines, studies and internet sources were searched and clustered for authors whose names have been referred often within this context and whose works were provided to be important and to be the leading literature for this research field. During the research further relevant literature was identified by using the concentric circles method to get more detailed insights in special parts of special parts of the work. Therefore it was helpful to search in literature indices to identify authors and sources which were often cited and which can be assumed as valuable for further detailed analysis. Another helpful tool was the Google Books search engine, as it was able to identify possible sources very fast and to receive a simple overview regarding content and structure of sources. As those digitalized books were not fully accessible research in libraries could not become redundant. As the most leading literature within this context is based on research of European and American scientists research was limited to sources which were provided in English or German language as also the author’s interpretation skills are limited to this both languages on a scientific level.

This work starts in chapter two with a description of the commonly used wordings and definitions within the theme and provides a vast but detailed understanding of the terms. This chapter acts as fundamental framework for the reader and enables to concentrate on further details within the following chapters. The third chapter provides a vast overview about measuring models and the different measuring approaches. In the fourth chapter two selective measuring methods as the intangible asset monitor and the IC Audit are focused in detail. The following fifth chapter handles the question how Intellectual capital can be reported, benchmarked or used wisely. This leads to a conclusion in the sixth chapter which takes up the initial research questions in order to provide answers after having gained new knowledge due to this work. Furthermore a future research outlook in the seventh chapter will show potentials for further economic research in the field.

2. Discovering the fundamental terminologies

Researching the literature for an accepted definition of Intellectual Capital does not lead to a comprehensible result due to the fact that there is no commonly agreedon definition of the leading researchers, yet.[8] Concepts which are similar in their fundamental thoughts often differentiate only by their terminology and lead to confusing usage and understanding of this terminology.[9] It can be recognized that Intangibles, Intangible Assets, Intangible Capital, Intangible Resources, Intellectual Capital, Intellectual Resources, Intellectual Assets, Intellectual Property, Knowledge Assets and Human Capital, to name only a few, are inflationary used based on the same context and content.[10]

Therefore the first objective of this work is to show different approaches and definitions of Intangible Assets and Intellectual Capital in order to generate a common understanding of both terminologies.

2.1. Intangible Assets

The term intangible which can also be defined as not tangible or “non-tangible”[11] primarily wants to state out the opposite to tangible by negotiation and focuses on the physical properties of an asset.[12] Furthermore a specification can be made defining tangible assets as those which can be touched and intangible assets which cannot be touched.[13] Enhancing those definitions literature differentiates between physical (tangible, visible) and non-physical (intangible, invisible) resources.[14]

An asset is generally known as “item of value or source of wealth”.[15] A fundamental definition of the FASB states, assets are “probable future economic benefits obtained or controlled by a particular entity as a result of past transactions or events”.[16]

Combining intangible and asset leads to a basic definition which states “an asset is an item of value or a source of wealth that cannot be felt by touch or is not readily discerned by mind”.[17] The IASB defines intangible assets by adding an economic purpose as “an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance held for use in the production or supply of goods or services for rental to others, or for administrative purposes”.[18] Intangible Assets “are neither tangible nor financial instruments”[19] and are characterized by having an economic value for a company. This value is affected by the expectation of an individual company specific benefit[20] at present or in the future. These also called “non-physical sources of expected benefits”[21] can be divided up into the three following categories (hierarchical concept can be found in Figure 2):

- Intellectual Property
- Separately Identifiable Intangible Assets
- Goodwill (Non-separable Intangible Asset)

Intellectual Property has a specialized classification due to its unique ability for a “special legal recognition and protection”[22] and is “created by human intellectual or inspirational activity”[23], also called Creative and Innovative Property.[24]

Separately Identifiable Intangible Assets are basically classified to their ability to be purchased or sold independently from other company assets. Therefore it has to be separable from the company that holds it, licensable or exchangeable for example.[25]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2: Company Value Overview[26]

Goodwill is a collective wording Identifyable Intangible Assets Financial Assets Book Assets / Book Value Tangible Assets for every kind of intangible assets which are neither Intellectual Property nor separately identifiable. It can be differentiated by its origin into genuine and derivative Goodwill. Genuine Goodwill is created within the company This can be recruiting expenses as well as R&D or marketing expenses for example. Derivate Goodwill is monetary gained Goodwill and can be achieved through inorganic or external growth. Derivative Goodwill can contain genuine Goodwill and is enriched by an added value (e.g. expected synergy effects).

Based on SFAS 141 and 142 intangible assets can be separated from Goodwill by their economic relation as can be seen in Table 1. EUSTACE defined Intangible Asset as “non-material factors that contribute to enterprise performance in the production of goods or the provision of services, or that are expected to generate future economic benefits to the entities or individuals that control their deployment.”[27]

A more comprehensive attempt can be found at KRISTANDL and BONTIS who tried to create a definition using the resource based view of the firm by stating:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1: Categorization of separately identifiable intangible assets[28]

“Intangibles are strategic firm resources that enable an organization to create sustainable value, but are not available to a large number of firms (rarity). They lead to potential future benefits which cannot be taken by others (appropriability), and are not imitable by competitors, or substitutable using other resources. They are not tradable or transferable on factor markets (immobility) due to corporate control. Because of their intangible nature, they are non-physical, non-financial, are not included in financial statements, and have a finite life. In order to become an intangible asset included in financial statements, these resources need to be clearly linked to a company’s products and services, identifiable from other resources, and become a traceable result of past transactions.”[29]

Within an economic context a resource or analogue a capability can be further defined as “valuable, rare, and costly to imitate”[30] and that an exploitation of it leads to “generation of a sustained competitive advantage”.[31]

Summarizing the gained impressions it can be said that the term Intangible Asset is often used from an Accounting or Finance perspective and “does not cover all components of intangibles”[32] as it is often described as resource for production or as an economic input factor. This supports the view that Accountants are the first group which was able to find a common language on this theme. The terminology Intangible Asset has been accepted broadly and lead to consideration within the tax law terminology which avoids further approaches using different terminologies meaning the same.

2.2. Intellectual Capital

A widely-spread approach about the character and set-up of intellectual capital is based on the thoughts of SVEIBY. He considered Intangible Assets as Intellectual Capital and established the definition “invisible assets that include employee competence, internal structure and external structure”.[33] Employee competence is taken into consideration because organizations cannot work without having employee competencies in order to develop or manage tangible or intangible assets. Regardless if an employee cannot be owned as a property it can be observed that employees tend to be loyal if treated fairly which leads to the assumption that they can be treated as assets. Internal structures take all kind of organizational property into account which is used, developed or acquired to interact with employees. This can be “patents, concepts, models, and computer and administrative systems [as well as] organizational culture or spirit”[34] and commitment. External structures are keeping up relations to stakeholders in order to satisfy their expectations and are “primarily determined by how well the company solves its customers’ problems”.[35] His thoughts lead to the development of his valuation model called Intangible Asset Monitor. SVEIBY’s classification model for Intellectual Capital can be found in Figure 3 within this chapter.

A further “static”[36] approach which is according to the model of SVEIBY can be found at ROOS et al. who defined Intellectual Capital as “the sum of knowledge of its members and the practical translation of this knowledge into brands, trademarks and processes”.[37] Furthermore “Intellectual Capital ( ) can be defined as all nonmonetary and nonphysical resources that are fully or partly controlled by the organization and that contribute to the organization’s value”.[38] Based on economic behavior Intellectual Capital is categorized into Human Capital, Relational Capital and Organizational Capital. Human Capital considers all resources of a company which are based on their employees and can neither be replaced by machines nor saved independently. Relational Capital includes all stakeholder relations which have a positive impact on business relations.[39] Organizational Capital can be defined as “the knowledge used to combine human skills and physical capital into systems”.[40] Examples for all three classifications can be found in Table 2 to provide a more detailed view. A structured model of the classification approach can be found at Figure 4 within this chapter.

BROOKING focused the Intellectual Capital term from a competitive point of view. She defines Intellectual Capital as a competitive long-term key success factor by saying “Intellectual Capital are the combined intangible assets which enable the company to function”[41] and that “intellectual capital is intellectual material knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience that can be put to use to create wealth”.[42]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 2: Resource Classification of Human Capital[43]

Her model differentiates four major asset types, the market assets, human centered assets, infrastructure assets and intellectual property assets. To provide a more detailed insight into her model, her classifications are enriched by several examples and can be found within Table 3.

The classification model of BROOKING can be found at Figure 5 in this chapter.

All definitions and models as there are many like those from EDVINSON, BONFOUR, MOURITSEN and VIEDMA, to take only a few of these into consideration have one in common:

- Intellectual Capital is based on knowledge
- Intellectual Capital is identifiable (as tangible or in intangible resource)
- Intellectual Capital is an organizational asset
- Intellectual Capital is organizational specific
- The broadly agreed organizational importance of Intellectual Capital

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 3: Intellectual Capital factors[44]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3: SVEIBY’s Intellectual Capital classification model[45]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 4: ROOS’ Intellectual Capital classification model[46]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 5: BROOKING’s Intellectual Capital classification model[47]

The term capital in connection with intellectual is used to underline the importance of the intellectual resource. “Capital has value, it can be measured ( ) and it needs to be managed”.[48]

Due to the fact that people and especially their knowledge have a big impact on Intellectual Capital a further specification has to be made also for the Knowledge term. Furthermore it implies that Intellectual Capital has to be seen as interdisciplinary theme or lens.[49] It has to be considered that Intangible Assets can be reviewed from more than those perspectives but which cannot be entirely considered due to the limitations of this work.[50]

2.3. Knowledge

Literature shows that knowledge has no common definition which has been agreed on during the last decades and varies depending on the discipline it is used for.[51]

A basic definition says that knowledge is any kind of knowing which is based on everybody’s access and comprehensible reasons and that every normal intelligent individual will get to the same result based on this reasons.[52]

Another more specific definition which is related to an economic context states that knowledge is the sum of knowing, skills and abilities, which are used from individuals to solve problems. This contains theoretical know-how as well as everyday life rules and directives. Knowledge is based on symbols, data and information and always occurs in contribution with individuals. Knowledge is created by individuals and represents their expectations about the coherence of cause and effect.[53] Symbols are often displayed as “digits, letters, numbers, characters, images”[54] which only make a sense when they are formed to data, based on rules. Data are “raw facts”[55] also described as “structured records of transactions”[56] which can be transformed to information by interpretation. Information is “valuated, validated or useful data”[57] which allows generating “concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how”.[58] Table 4 provides samples for symbols as well as for data and information and highlights the evolutional change without claiming to complete.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 4: Symbols, data and information[59]

Knowledge is information combined with the “results of experience organized and stored inside each individual’s own mind”.[60] That means knowing why something is like it is and to which extend it could lead. Based on the example provided in Table 4 this means knowing why the world’s population is rising so fast during since 1950 (due to better medical treatment and lower child mortality rate for example).

NONAKA and TAKEUCHI initiated a dimensional differentiation of knowledge within an organizational context based on POLANYI’s thoughts into:[61]

- Explicit vs. Implicit Knowledge (see Table 5)
- Individual vs. Collective Knowledge.

“Implicit”[62] or “tacit”[63] knowledge which is personal knowledge embedded in individual experiences, intuitions and learned knowledge, which cannot be shared and exchanged directly from one individual to another.[64] Furthermore it is also known as procedural knowledge which means knowing how to do something in order to be successful[65] and “embodied knowledge”[66] because it is bounded to individuals. In general it is a “complex, abstract and context dependent”[67] kind of knowledge which is hard to be formalized, standardized and communicated.[68]

“Explicit”[69], also called “articulated”[70], “declarative”[71] or “codified”[72] knowledge is “constituted by implicit knowledge acting as support as well as catalyst”[73] and can be defined as knowledge which is independent from individuals and which is somehow saved (e.g. databases) and accessible as well as shareable (e.g. by language) for everybody.[74]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 5: Implicit and Explicit Knowledge[75]

While individual knowledge can be defined as subjectively accessible knowledge of a single person[76], collective knowledge is related to a group or a network of people by sharing a “certain level of common understanding”.[77] This can be reached through knowledge transfer processes within the group or network. Individual knowledge is the basic source for collective knowledge and interactivity between members of the group or network leads to synergies and evolution of knowledge.[78] The term Collective Knowledge is also often used to describe the totality of knowledge of a whole group or network based on different individual sets of knowledge.[79]

[...]


[1] See Becker,D. (2005), p.87.

[2] See Osterloh, M., Frost, J. (2006), p.206 ; see also Wiig, K. (2004), p.60.

[3] Porter,G. and Norton, C. (2009), p.382 ; see also Gabehart, S., Brinkley, R. (2002), p.37 ; see also Hirt, G., Block, S. (2004), p.164.

[4] Source: Own illustration based on Matzler, K. (2005), p.532

[5] See Abeysekera, I. (2008), p.11

[6] German stock index containing 30 major companies which are traded at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.

[7] For further detailed information see Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (2008).

[8] See Eustace (2000), p.31.

[9] See Bontis, N. (2001), p.41 ff. ; see also Thiele (1997) p.39 ff.; see also Boer, F. P. (2002) p.15 ; see also Marr, B. (2005), p.222 .

[10] See Marr, B., Gray, D. (2004), p.102 ; see also AKIW (2004), p.225 ; see also Holsapple; C.

W. (2002), p. 356 ; see also Marr, B. (2005), p.222.

[11] Rao, C. P. (2001), p.79 ; Hew, D., Loi, W. (2004), p.59.

[12] See Bianchi, P., Labory, S. (2004), p.75 , see also Haller, A. (1998), p.564.

[13] See Weetmann, P. (2006), p.198 ; see also Griffiths, P. (2006), p.286.

[14] See Becker, D. (2005), p. 274 ; see also Wernerfelt (1984), S.172 ; see also Knaese (1996) p.15 ff. ; see also Welge, M. K., Al-Laham, A. (2001), S.254 ; see also Wirtz, B. W. (2003), p.39 ; see also Grant (2008), p.131 ff. ; see also Rasche, C., Wolfrum, B. (1994), p.502 ; see also Collis, D., Montgomery, A. (1995), p.119.

[15] Matzler, K. et al. (2006), p.6.

[16] FASB, SFAC No.6 (1985), par. 25

[17] Berry, J. (2004), p.1.

[18] IASB, IAS 38.7 (2004)

[19] Hand, J., Lev, B. (2004), p.472.

[20] See Schütte, J. (2006), p.35.

[21] Zambon, S. (2004), p.18.

[22] Reilly, R. F., Schweihs, R. P. (1999), p.20.

[23] Reilly, R. F., Schweihs, R. P. (1999), p.20.

[24] See Reilly, R. F., Schweihs, R. P. (1999), p.20.

[25] See Nikolai, A. et al. (2009).

[26] Source: Own illustration.

[27] Eustace (2000), p.31.

[28] Own table based on Reilly, R. F., Schweihs, R. P. (1999), p.19 ; see also Markham, M. (2005) p.156.

[29] Kristandl, G., Bontis, N. (2007), p.1518 f.

[30] Barney, J. B., Clark D. N. (2007), p.71.

[31] Barney, J. B., Clark D. N. (2007), p.71 .

[32] Andriessen, D. (2004), p.63.

[33] Sveiby, K. E. (1997), p.11.

[34] Sveiby, K. E. (1997): p.10 f.

[35] Sveiby, K. E. (1997): p.10 f.

[36] Choo, C., Bontis, N. (2002), p.626.

[37] Roos, J. et al. (1997), p.37.

[38] Roos, J. et al. (2005), p.19.

[39] See Roos, J. et al. (2005), p.19.

[40] Evenson, R., Westphal, L. (1995), p. 2237 ; see also Corrado, C. et al. (2005), p.75.

[41] Brooking, A. (1996), p.12.

[42] Brooking, A. (1996), p.10.

[43] Adapted table based on Roos, G. et al. (2005), p.36.

[44] Adapted table based on Luthy,D. (1998), p.9 f. ; see also Gerin-Swarowski, C. (2007), p.13.

[45] Source: Own illustration.

[46] Source: Own illustration.

[47] Source: Own illustration.

[48] Andriessen, D. (2004), p.62.

[49] See Marr, B. (2005), p.222.

[50] Further disciplinary views on Intellectual Capital can be found at Marr, B. (2005): Perspectives on Intellectual Capital.

[51] See Sander, J. (1999), p.21 ; see also Zaunmüller, H. (2005), p.11 ; see also Röhling, T. (2003), p. 48 ; see also Kleinhans, A. M. (1989), p. 6 ff. ; see also Amelingmeyer (2002), p.40.

[52] See Clar, G., Mohr, H. (1997), p.34.

[53] See Probst, G. et al. (2003), p.22.

[54] Naeve, A. (2006), p.108.

[55] Naeve, A. (2006), p.108.

[56] Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L. (1998), p.2.

[57] Meadow et al. (2000), p.35 ; Lytras, M. D., Naeve, A. (2006), p.108; Bouthillier, F., Shearer, K. (2003), p.4.

[58] Wiig, K. M. (1999), p.3-2.

[59] Source: Own table.

[60] Orna, E., Stevens, G. (1995), p.35.

[61] See Renzl, B. (2003), p.24.

[62] Bialystok (1981), p.34, adapted format ; see also Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), p.61; Olson, D. R. (2003), p.72.

[63] Polanyi, M. (1966), p.4 ; Busch, P. (2008), p.55.

[64] See Kazi, A. S. (2005), p.306 ; see also Martinez, M., Scherer, R.(2006), p.273.

[65] See Gass, S. M., Selinker, L. (2008), p.518.

[66] North, K. (2005); p.43.

[67] De Long, D. W. (2004), p.101.

[68] See Flanagin, A. (2002), p.92.

[69] Bialystok (1981), p.34, adapted format ; see also Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), p.61.

[70] Hedlund, G., Nonaka, I. (1993), p.118 ff.

[71] Paradis, M. (2004), p.50 ; see also Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), p.61.

[72] Jensen, H. S. et al. (2003), p.102.

[73] Jensen, H. S. et al. (2003), p.103.

[74] See Tayeb, M. H. (2005), p.136.

[75] Adapted table based on Nonaka, I., Takeuch, H. (1995), p.61.

[76] See Reinmann, G. (2005), p.8.

[77] Reigeluth, C. M. (1999), p.286.

[78] See Spender, J. C. (1994), p.397.

[79] See Lam, A. (2000), p.491 ; see also Spender, J. C. (1996), p.54.

Author

Share

Previous

Title: Measuring and Evaluating Intellectual Capital