Measuring IC following a semi-qualitative approach: an integrated framework

IC, 2013 – 9(3): 539-558 – Online ISSN: 1697-9818 – Print ISSN: 2014-3214 http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 Measuring IC following a semi-qualitative approach: An integrated framework Chiara Verbano, Maria Crema University of Padova (Italy) [email protected], cre[email protected]d.it Received May 2013 Accepted July 2013 Abstract Purpose: Considering the different IC measures adopted in literature, the advantages of adopting semi-qualitative measures, and the lack of an agreed system for IC evaluation, the purpose of the paper is to analyse literature on IC measurement following a semi-qualitative approach, with the final intent to build an IC measurement framework. Design/methodology/approach: A literature review on IC measurement system, following a semi-qualitative approach, has been conducted and analysed, in order to re-organize and synthesize all items used in previous researches. Findings: An integrated framework emerged from this research and it constitutes an IC measurement system, created gathering and integrating different items previously adopted in literature. Each of these variables has been organized in categories belonging to one of the three main components of IC: human capital, internal structural capital and relational capital. Originality/value: This research provides an integrated tool for IC evaluation, fostering toward a well agreed measurement system that is still lacking in literature. This framework could be interesting not only for the academic world, which in the last two decades reveals increasing attention to IC, but also for the management of the companies, that with IC measurement can increase awareness of the firm’s value and develop internal auditing system to support the management of these assets. Moreover, -539- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 it could be a useful instrument for the communication of IC value to the external stakeholders, as customers, suppliers and especially shareholders, and to investors and financial analysts. Keywords: intellectual capital, intangible capital, measurement system, framework, semiqualitative measures Jel Codes: O3, M1 Introduction In literature different definitions of intellectual capital (IC) are provided. Some of them converge in the definition of IC as a set of intangible assets that enable firms to generate added value (Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen & Roos, 1999; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Reed, Lubatkin & Srinivasan, 2006). Another aspect common with many definitions is that proposed by Stewart (1997), which defines IC as the difference between the market value and the book value of a company. Stewart (1997), Bontis (2001), Zerenler, Hasiloglu & Sezgin 2009, Hsu and Wang (2012) emphasize a third aspect in their definition of IC, considering it as a stock of knowledge stored within the company and that can be used by employees. One of the most comprehensive definitions is provided by Granstrand (2000) which includes in IC all the intangible resources that can be considered assets, which can be purchased, combined, transformed and exploited. Even if IC is defined in different ways, the majority of the authors recognized that it is constitutes of 3 categories: human capital (HC), which is the basis of personal knowledge of an organization residing in its employees (Bontis, 2001), internal structural capital (ISC), that is the institutionalized knowledge and codified experience that reside within the company (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) and relational capital (RC) that is brands and company image and all the relationships the company has with the outside environment and from which it can gain advantages (Ngah & Ibrahim, 2009; Bontis, Keow & Richardson, 2000). In the new economy based on ability to create, communicate and share knowledge, tangible and financial assets are rapidly becoming commodities that can generate at most a moderate return on investment. Extraordinary profits and dominant competitive positions are obtainable only with the intelligent use of intangible assets (Lev, 2001). In this context, to understand how a company creates value based on IC possessed becomes a central issue in management research (Bontis, 1999). However, when the firms base their competitive advantage on its intangible resources and know-how, the current financial schemes and the traditional performance measures, such as profit or cash flows are inadequate and insufficient (Bukh, -540- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 2003). The reasons for this inadequacy depend on the fact that intangible assets usually can not be represented in the balance sheet at their purchase value, like tangible assets, because they are generated internally. Moreover, IC does not exist in itself, but is the result of a combined effect and synergy of various assets, both tangible and intangible, which makes it difficult to estimate it independently. Many researchers and scholars (e.g., Brennan & Connell, 2000; Beattie & Thomson, 2007) have argued that new methods and new indicators are needed to the managers and investors interested in the company's intangible assets, to provide them with most relevant information required in their decision-making processes. With the intention of providing a means of communication about the use, the allocation and the value of intangible resources, many companies have begun to integrate the traditional annual reports with new reports on their IC. The evaluation and assessment of intangible resources becomes essential not only in the capital market and in the processes of merger or acquisition, but also to increase the efficiency of operations, to improve the motivation of employees and to support decisions of resources allocating (Crema & Verbano, 2013). Although it is widely acknowledged the importance of IC for the economic well-being (Roos & Roos, 1997), it still remains unsolved the problem of measuring a resource whose nature is intangible and non-financial. For these reasons the aim of this paper is to develop a framework to integrate and complete the existing classifications for measuring IC, obtained analyzing the main measures purposed in literature following a semi-qualitative approach. Measures of Intellectual Capital In the literature there are many methods for the IC measurement that, according to Sveiby (2010), can be grouped in: •Direct methods of assessment of intellectual capital, which provide an estimate of the economic value of intangible assets, identifying the various components. Once identified, they may be assessed individually or aggregated with coefficients; •Market capitalization methods, which are based on the difference between book value and market capitalization; •ROA-based methods, which calculate a return on tangible assets (Roa) in relation to standardized indices by sector of activity, and then determine the Roa of intangible assets by difference; •Method of scorecard, that identifies the components of intangible assets, and generates indices and indicators collected in scorecards or graphics. -541- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 Another possible classification of IC measurement system is based on the qualitative or quantitative approach. Qualitative measures are generally perceptive and are often used when the object of measurement or the attribute of interest is not quantifiable. Instead, especially for companies focused mostly on physical assets, the measure provides a quantitative output, such as the number of products, an amount of money or any amount of time. These measurements provide an accurate snapshot of the company, but assume that there is a precise moment in which these measures are taken. While quantitative measures are retrospective and tell us what happened, qualitative measures are based on the present and the future and they tell us what's going on. Cañibano, Garcia-Ayuso & Sánchez, 1999 measure the IC using several indicators divided into financial and non-financial; they highlight the following advantages for financial measures: 1) they are easy to use because of the availability of existing documentation, 2) they are familiar to both internal managers the company and for those who evaluate the company from outside 3) being common to many companies they allow performance benchmarking. However, the disadvantage of these measures is to be based on historical data and to be dependent on the existence and continuity of the market. Sveiby (2010) argues that a new asset as IC can not be measured through old financial indicators since its nature is essentially non-monetary. So, as the information regarding the IC could be useful to managers and provide an advantage from their use, a complete system of non-financial measures is needed since the traditional methods are no longer adequate (Brennan & Connell, 2000); the traditional accounting system is based on historical data and focuses on monetary values, while IC is future-oriented. Given that IC is a difficult element to measure, it is common to see the use of perceptive and qualitative measures (Kannan & Albur, 2004; Crema & Verbano, 2013), usually adopting Likert scale following a semi-qualitative approach. Such measures are distinguished by the completeness offered by qualitative IC measures and the possibility to aggregate and compare over time and space the measurements obtained, through statistically elaboration. By analyzing more than 100 articles in the field of IC, Kannan & Aulbur, 2004 found that qualitative measures are among the most widely used measurement techniques. Although quantitative measures are considered more objective, there is empirical evidence that semiqualitative and quantitative measures, applied to the same intangibles, are often consistent with each other. For example, in a study of Bontis & Fitz-Enz, 2002, who used both types of measurement, the authors found a positive association between the results of a survey and financial measures. -542- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 Although the various advantages of semi-qualitative IC measures, in literature the contribution of different authors are not integrated together, giving a comprehensive measurement instrument that includes all components that should be considered for IC evaluation. For this reason a literature review has been conducted in order to critically study and analyze semi-qualitative measures that can be applied for IC assessment. Objectives and methodology Considering different IC measures that are adopted in literature, the advantages of adopting semi-qualitative measures, and the lack of an agreed system for IC evaluation, the purpose of the paper is to analyse literature on IC measurement following a semi-qualitative approach, with the final intent to build an IC measurement framework. In order to conduct a rigorous analysis, following the indications of Denyer & Tranfield, 2009, Pawson (2006), Denyer Tranfield & Van Aken, 2008 and Brereton, Kitchenham, Budgen, Turnera & Khalil, 2007, a protocol for the systematic literature review has been generated including the following steps: a) Conceptual discussion of the problem; b) Definition of literature review questions; c) Search strategy; d) Paper selection criteria; e) Single paper analysis; f) Descriptive analysis of the extracted database; g) Synthesis and content analysis. The literature review question was next formulated as follows: How can be measured intellectual capital, following a semi-qualitative approach? Paper searching was carried out using mainly EBSCO, SCOPUS and ISI databases, and considering the period 2000-2012. The keywords employed for the searching phase were: “intangibles” or, “intangible assets” or “intellectual capital”, combined with “measurement” or “measure” or “firm performance” or “business performance” or “survey”. For the paper selection phase the following criteria have been adopted: exclusion of duplications and conferences proceedings, exclusion of papers focused on public services, exclusion of papers that were not useful to answer to literature review questions. Referring to the latter filter, only articles adopting semi-qualitative method and with a detailed description of variables that measure IC were considered. This last criterion led to exclude 90% of literature selected in the previous phase. -543- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 A database of 15 articles was finally obtained (tab.1). Author/s Title Year Journal 1Ahmed, Hussainey Managers' and auditors' perceptions of intellectual capital reporting 2010 Managerial Auditing Journal 2Bontis, Keow, Richardson Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries 2000 J. of Intellectual Capital 3 Bozbura Measurement and application of intellectual capital in Turkey 2004 The Learning Organization 4Cabrita, Bontis Intellectual capital and business performance in the Portuguese banking industry 2008 Int. J. of Technology Management 5Hsu, Sabherwal Relationship between Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management: An Empirical Investigation 2012 Decision Sciences 6Hsu, Sabherwal From Intellectual Capital to Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Management Capabilities 2011 IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management 7 Huang, Wu Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: the Taiwan biotech industry 2010 Management Decision 8Liu, Ghauri, Sinkovics Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes 2010 J of World Business 9 Montequin, Fernandez, Cabal, Gutierrez An integrated framework for intellectual capital measurement and knowledge management implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises 2006 J. of Information Science 10 Reed, Lubatkin, Srinivasun Proposing and testing an intellectual capitalbased view of the firm 2006 J. of Management Studies 11 Sharabati, Jawad, Bontis Intellectual capital and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan 2010 Management Decision 12 Subramania, Youndt The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities 2005 Academy of Management Journal 13 Suraj, Bontis Managing intellectual capital in Nigerian telecommunications companies 2012 J. of Intellectual Capital 14 Wu, Lin, Hsu Intellectual capital, dynamic capabilities and innovative performance of organizations 2007 Int. J. of Technology Management 15 Youndt, Subramania, Snell Intellectual Capital Profiles: An Examination of Investments and Returns 2004 J. of Management Studies Table 1. The obtained database on IC measurement The journals most considered are the International Journal of Technology Management, the Journal of Intellectual Capital, Journal of Management Studies and Management Decision, each with two articles. As far as time distribution is concerned, it can be observed that almost half of the papers were published in the last three years (2010-2012), showing an increasing interest in this theme. -544- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 Literature review on semi-qualitative IC measures The articles obtained in the database were deeply analyzed to understand and report the structure (i.e. the main constructs) and the items used in the questionnaire to measure IC. All the papers considered recognised the three following basic components of IC: human capital (HC), internal structural capital or organizational capital (ISC) and relational capital or market capital (RC). Within each construct a limited number of items are considered and only in very few cases they are structured in grouping variables inside each construct. In the following, items and categories of variables identified grouping the items of the questionnaires based on the object of measurement, will be presented for the three constructs, highlighting also features and differences resulting from the analysis of the database. Human capital measurement Combining works of different scholars, HC refers to capabilities and attitude of the employees, knowledge and competence, experience, education and training, creativity (Marr, 2005; Roos, Roos, Dragonetti & Edvinsson, 1997; Hudson, 1993). Integrating human capital items of the various questionnaires considered the following categories can be recognised (see table 2): •Education and training: includes all items that affect the level of education of employees, knowledge and competencies gained through the training offered by the company. Many authors (Sharabati, Jawad & Bontis, 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) insert these elements relating to training in structural capital. On the one hand, the training offered by the company to enhanced individual knowledge is an indicator of human capital; on the other hand, the fact that the company aims to increase its human capital by providing appropriate training programs is related to the structural capital. In order to avoid duplication of items in the two categories above, it was decided to follow the most common practice, which provides training as part of human capital. •Capabilities: abilities related to how to perform their job, i.e. the know-how that can be used directly in the work environment, that includes individual skills and the experience of the employees. •Motivation: is expressed by the alignment of employee’s interests with those of the company, engaging themselves in achieving the company’s objectives. This means a sense of belonging and job satisfaction that can be favoured by the incentive system. •Versatility, creativity and innovation propensity: generally includes employee characteristics such as innovativeness, reactive and proactive skills and ability to change. -545- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 •Internal communication and team working: the elements included in this category belong to what is called internal social capital (ISC), considered as a set of social relations, collaboration and sharing of knowledge and information among employees. According to some authors (e.g. Reed et al., 2006), the internal social capital would be a subcategory of ISC, but several other authors (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000 and others), insert it between the measures of the HC, as the individuals and their attitudes give rise to the exchange of information and the creation of social relations inside the company. This second meaning has been followed in this work; A detailed description of the items considered in each category can be observed in table 2. Education and Training •Employees’’ Competence at ideal level (matching with employees work requirements and responsibilities) (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Trained personnel average when compared with the sector (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Education and training employees affect the company's productivity, profitability and market value (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Experts with PhD or MSc degrees (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) •Experts with professional education (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) •Company employees undertake continuous training programs every year (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al.,2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •The company profound lot of effort and time to update and develop the knowledge and skills of employees (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al.,2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •The company offers training programs for employees to improve their skills (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) •Importance of investment in employees education (Bozbura, 2004) Capabilities •Employees are experts in their respective areas (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •The company has the lowest transaction cost in the sector (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Experience and competence of the employees affect productivity, profitability and market value (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Employees have high skills (Youndt, Subramaniam & Snell, 2004; Huang & Wu, 2010; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2011; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012; Reed et al., 2006) •Employees are experts in their particular job (Youndt et al., 2004; Huang & Wu, 2010; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2011; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012; Reed et al., 2006) •Our employees are generally considered the best in the industry (Youndt et al., 2004; Huang & Wu, 2010; Hsu, Sabherwal, 2011; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012; Reed et al., 2006) •Level of experience of managers (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) •Level of experience and skills of employees (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) -546- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 •Employees are able to influence managers on important problems (Reed et al., 2006) •Employees exhibit leadership abilities (Bozbura, 2004; Reed et al., 2006) •Level of leadership of managers (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) •Employees are focused on the quality of service provided (Reed et al., 2006) Motivation •Employees generally give the maximum and this makes the company different from others in the field (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Employees work constantly to their full potential (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Employees trust and accept the goals and values (Wu, Lin & Hsu, 2007) •Employees devoted themselves to the organization (Wu et al., 2007) •Employees willing to keep their membership identity (Wu et al., 2007) •Perceived effectiveness of the remuneration system (Bozbura, 2004) •Increasing salaries and remuneration for experts (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) •Perceived clearness of promotional policies(Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010) Versatility, creativity and innovation propensity •Employees are considered creative and brilliant (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012; Reed et al, 2006, Youndt et al., 2004; Huang & Wu, 2010; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2011; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012) •Employees usually come up with new ideas (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012; Reed et al, 2006; Youndt et al., 2004; Huang & Wu, 2010; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2011; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012) •Compared to competitors is launched a greater number of new products ((Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Employees are encouraged in innovation (Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010; Bozbura, 2004) •Employees are satisfied with the innovation policy and programs of the company (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Innovation and creativity of employees affect the company's productivity, profitability and market value (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Innovation and creativity of employees affect the company's profitability (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Innovation and creativity of employees affect the company's market value (Sharabati et al., 2010; Bontis et al., 2000; Cabrita & Bontis, 2008; Suraj & Bontis, 2012) •Employees develop viable solutions within a short period of time (Wu et al., 2007) •Employees develop new ideas from past experiences (Wu et al., 2007) •Employees are taking the necessary risks to achieve the goals (Reed et al., 2006; Ahmed & Hussainey, 2010; Bozbura, 2004) •Versatility: employees apply knowledge to problems and opportunities that arise in other business areas (Youndt et al., 2004; Huang & Wu, 2010; Hsu & Sabherwal, 2011; Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005; Reed et al., 2006) •Employees are able to anticipate the effects of external changes on the company (Reed et al., 2006) -547- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 INTANGIBLE CAPITAL Human Capital Internal Structural Capital Relational Capital Education and training education training competences Strategy and Organization mission and strategy organizational structure climate and culture - human resource management practices External Collaborations -use/importance of collaborations -sharing knowledge, experiences, problems, technologies -managerial practices Capabilities experiences skills leadership abilities Intellectual property rights strategies mechanisms and processes use/importance of IPR Customer relations -use/importance of customers relations -understanding customers -sharing information and problems -customer satisfaction and loyalty Motivations commitment membership identity incentive system Information Infrastructure -knowledge coding -investment in Information management system (IMS) -performance of IMS Supplier relations -use/importance of suppliers relations -stability of suppliers -sharing information and problems Versatility, creativity and innovation propensity (about new ideas /products, problem solutions) Innovation Capital -continuous improvement -organization for innovation -management commitment -leadership in R&D Compe ti tors and others rel . -use/importance of competitors relations -knowing competitors Intern. comm. & teamworking (sharing information, ideas, knowledge, problems) Reputation -image -brand Table 5. An integrated framework for IC measurement following a semi-qualitative approach Conclusion As IC measurement systems found in the literature appear fragmented and unstructured, the purpose of this paper was firstly to find in the scientific literature indicators and variables used for measuring semi-qualitative IC, and to structure them into categories of variables in each of the three IC constructs (human capital, internal structural capital and relational capital). Secondly, an integrated framework synthesizing the above mentioned measures was created. Since the new operating environment in which companies operate today, this topic is of interest not only for the academic world, which in the last two decades reveals increasing attention to this subject, but also for managers of the companies and external stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, financial investors and shareholders, who look with interest to company resources. -554- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 Measuring IC means becoming aware of the company’s value and this is the first step to translate this intangible capital into economic value and thus into profit. Examples are the benefits arising from the price premium, the strategic position achieved by innovation leadership, by brand recognition, or by increasing customer loyalty. These are all decisive factors for the competitive advantage, deriving from the effective exploitation of intangible resources. As regards the external communication, a tool for IC evaluation, compared to the traditional financial performance parameters, offers also relevant information for outside investors and analysts. Further developments of this research will provide validation of this framework within a sample of companies belonging to different sectors, in order to test its suitability and to improve it with refinements suggested from this testing. Moreover, after the operationalization of the proposed framework, statistical analysis such as cluster analysis and regressions would allow to describe companies, creating their profiles on the basis of intangible assets, as well as enabling the analysis of possible relations among the components of intangibles. Other variables, such as performance, strategies, company size and so on could also be studied, by linking them to the intangibles. The theoretical framework created could also form the basis for the development of an instrument of internal auditing, to be adopted to support the evaluation, management and communication of the value of intangible assets. References AHMED, A.; HUSSAINEY, K. (2010). Managers’ and auditors’ perceptions of intellectual capital reporting, Managerial Auditing Journal, 5(9): 844-860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686901011080035 BEATTIE, V.; THOMSON, S.J. (2007). Lifting the Lid on the Use of Content Analysis to Investigate Intellectual Capital Disclosures, Accounting Forum, 31: 129-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2007.02.001 BONTIS, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital, International Journal of Management Review, 3(1): 41-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00053 BONTIS, N.; DRAGONETTI, N.C.; JACOBSEN, K.; ROOS, G. (1999). The knowledge toolbox: A review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources, European management journal, 17(4): 391-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00019-5 BONTIS, N.; FITZ-ENZ, J. (2002). Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3): 223-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930210435589 -555- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 BONTIS, N.; KEOW, W.C.; RICHARDSON, S. (2000). Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1): 85-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930010324188 BOZBURA, F.T. (2004). Measurement and application of intellectual capital in Turkey, Learning Organization, 11(4/5): 357-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470410538251 BRENNAN, N.; CONNELL, B. (2000). Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3): 206-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930010350792 BRERETON, P.; KITCHENHAM, B. A.; BUDGEN, D.; TURNERA, M.; KHALIL, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain, The Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4): 571–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009 BUKH, P. N. (2003). Commentary: The relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: a paradox?, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(1): 49-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513570310464273 CABRITA, M.; BONTIS, N. (2008). Intellectual capital and business performance in the Portuguese banking industry, International Journal of Technology Management, 43(1-3): 212-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2008.019416 CAÑIBANO, L.; GARCIA-AYUSO, M.; SÁNCHEZ, P. (2000). Accounting for intangibles: a literature review, Journal of Accounting Literature, 19: 102-130. CREMA, M., VERBANO, C. (2013). The influence of technology innovation strategy on intangible assets and their impact on innovation performance, Global Innovation and knowledge AcademyGIKA 2013, University of Valencia, Spain, 9-11th July 2013. DENYER, D.; TRANFIELD, D. (2009). Producing a Systematic Review. In D.A. Buchanan and A. Bryman (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. pg. 670-689, London: SAGE. DENYER, D.; TRANFIELD, D.; VAN AKEN, J. E. (2008). Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis, Organization Studies, 29(3): 393-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020 GRANSTRAND, O. (2000). The shift towards intellectual capitalism, the role of infocom technologies, Research Policy, 29(9): 1061-1080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00487333(99)00070-0 GUTHRIE, J.; PETTY, R.; RICCERI, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2): 254-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930610661890 HSU, I.; SABHERWAL, R. (2012). Relationship between Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management: An Empirical Investigation, Decision Sciences, 43(3): 189-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2012.00357.x -556- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 HSU, I.C.; SABHERWAL, R. (2011). From Intellectual Capital to Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Management Capabilities, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 58(4): 626-642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2011.2111455 HSU, L.C.; WANG, C.H. (2012). Clarifying the Effect of Intellectual Capital on Performance: The Mediating Role of Dynamic Capability, British Journal of Management, 23(2): 179-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00718.x HUANG, Y.C.; WU, Y.C. J. (2010). Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: the Taiwan biotech industry, Management Decision, 48(4): 580-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741011041364 HUDSON, W. (1993). Intellectual capital: How to build it, enhance it, use it. New York: John Wiley. KANNAN, G.; AULBUR, W.G. (2004). Intellectual capital: measurement effectiveness, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 389-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930410550363 KAPLAN, R.S.; NORTON, D.P. (2004). Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets, Harvard business review, 82(2): 52-63. LEV, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting, Brookings Inst Press. LIU, C.L.E.; GHAURI, P.N.; SINKOVICS, R.R. (2010). Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes, Journal of World Business, 45(3): 237-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.005 MARR, B. (2005). Perspectives on Intellectual Capital: Multidisciplinary Insights into Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Boston: Elsevier, MA. MONTEQUIN, V.R.; FERNANDEZ, F.O.; CABAL, V.A.; GUTIERREZ, N.R. (2006). An integrated framework for intellectual capital measurement and knowledge management implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises, Journal of Information Science, 32(6): 525-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551506067127 NGAH, R.; IBRAHIM, A.R. (2009). The Relationship of Intellectual Capital, Innovation and Organizational Performance: a Preliminary Study in Malaysian SMEs, International Journal of Management Innovation Systems, 1(1): 1-13. PAWSON, R. (2006). Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE publications. PETRONI, G.; VENTURINI, K.; VERBANO, C. (2012). Open innovation and new issues in R & D organization and personnel management. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, 23(1): 147-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.561250 PRZYSUSKI, M.; LALAPET, S.; SWANEVELD, H. (2004). Transfer pricing of intangible property – part 1: a Canadian-US comparison, Corporate Business Taxation, 5(9): 1-9. REED, K.K.; LUBATKIN, M.; SRINIVASAN, N. (2006). Proposing and Testing an Intellectual Capital‐Based View of the Firm, Journal of Management Studies, 43(4): 867-893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00614.x -557- Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.427 ROOS, G.; ROOS, J.; DRAGONETTI, N.; EDVINSSON, L. (1997). Intellectual Capital; Navigating in the New Business Landscape. New York: New York University Press. ROOS, G.; ROOS, J. (1997). Measuring your company's intellectual performance, Long range planning, 30(3): 413-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(97)90260-0 SHARABATI, A.A.A.; JAWAD, S.N.; BONTIS, N. (2010). Intellectual capital and business performance in the pharmaceutical sector of Jordan, Management Decision, 48(1): 105-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741011014481 STEWART, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Doubleday. SUBRAMANIAM, M.; YOUNDT, M.A. (2005). The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities, Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 450-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407911 SURAJ, O.A.; BONTIS, N. (2012). Managing intellectual capital in Nigerian telecommunications companies, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(2): 262-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931211225724 SVEIBY, K.E. (2010). Methods for measuring intangible assets, available online at: http://www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm (accessed March, 2013). WU, S.H.; LIN, L.Y.; HSU, M.Y. (2007). Intellectual capital, dynamic capabilities and innovative performance of organisations, International Journal of Technology Management, 39(3): 279-296. YOUNDT, M.A.; SUBRAMANIAM, M.; SNELL, S.A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns, Journal of Management Studies, 41(2): 335-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00435.x ZERENLER, M.; HASILOGLU, S.B.; SEZGIN, M. (2009). Intellectual Capital and Innovation Performance: Empirical Evidence in the Turkish Automotive Supplier, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3(4): 31-40. Intangible Capital, 2013 (www.intangiblecapital.org) El artículo está con Reconocimiento-NoComercial 3.0 de Creative Commons. Puede copiarlo, distribuirlo y comunicarlo públicamente siempre que cite a su autor y a Intangible Capital. No lo utilice para fines comerciales. La licencia completa se puede consultar en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/es/ -558-