Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is there something wrong with intellectual capital management models?

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

During the recent years the intellectual capital (IC) literature has produced tens of models to support the various IC management (ICM) activities, such as identification, measurement, valuation, acquisition and reporting IC. However, the practice of applying these models seems to be a fairly new issue in many organisations. The gap between research and practice (i.e. not many organisations seem to be applying ICM models) may result from several issues. This paper approaches the gap from two perspectives. First, the paper questions the applicability of ICM models. Second, although IC as a research theme is quite immature many management models that also include some of the aspects of IC have been developed within general management disciplines. Thus, this study examines whether traditional management models may also be suitable for ICM. The two questions are answered by using four single cases in which action research projects were carried out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andriessen D (2001) Weightless wealth: four modifications to standard IC theory. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (3), 204–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen D (2004a) IC valuation and measurement: classifying the state of the art. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (2), 230–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen D (2004b) Making Sense of Intellectual Capital: Designing a Method for the Valuation of Intangibles. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, United States of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMWA (2004) Intellectual Capital Statement – Made in Germany, Guideline. Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour, Berlin.

  • Bose S and Thomas K (2007) Applying the balanced scorecard for better performance of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8 (4), 653–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown Jr A, Osborn T, Chan JM and Jaganathan V (2005) Managing intellectual capital. Research Technology Management 48 (6), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns J and Scapens RW (2000) Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework. Management Accounting Research 11 (1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci D and Schiuma G (2006) Knowledge asset value spiral: linking knowledge assets to company's performance. Knowledge and Process Management 13 (1), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci D and Schiuma G (2007) Knowledge assets value creation map, assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications 32 (3), 814–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci D, Marr B and Schiuma G (2004) The knowledge value chain: how intellectual capital impacts on business performance. International Journal of Technology Management 27 (6/7), 575–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Zhu Z and Xie HY (2004) Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (1), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo CW and Bontis N (Eds) (2002) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlan P and Coghlan D (2002) Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22 (2), 220–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DMTI (2003) Intellectual Capital Statements – The New Guideline. Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Copenhagen.

  • de Gooier J (2000) Designing a knowledge management performance framework. Journal of Knowledge Management 4 (4), 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dzinkowski R (2000) The measurement and management of intellectual capital: an introduction. International Management Accounting Study 78 (2), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson L (1997) Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning 30 (3), 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson L and Sullivan P (1996) Developing model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal 14 (4), 356–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFQM (2003) Introducing excellence. [WWW document] http://www.efqm.org/uploads/introducing_english.pdf (accessed 11 December 2007).

  • Eisenhardt KM and Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granlund M (2001) Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems. Management Accounting Research 12 (2), 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasenick K and Low J (2004) Shaken, not stirred: defining and connecting indicators for the measurement and valuation of intangibles. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (2), 268–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta P (2006) Beyond PDCA – a new process management model. Quality Progress 39 (7), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan H and Tibbits H (2000) Strategic management of electronic commerce: an adaptation of the balanced scorecard. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 10 (5), 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heng MSH (2001) Mapping intellectual capital in a small manufacturing enterprise. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (1), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins R and Weir M (2007) Intellectual assets and public policy. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8 (4), 708–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussi T (2001) Aineettoman varallisuuden johtaminen. ETLA, Helsinki (In Finnish).

    Google Scholar 

  • InCaS (2009) InCaS – intellectual capital statement for Europe, know-how on creating, describing and developing value in small and medium enterprises. [WWW document] http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/incas/index.html (accessed 2 June 2009).

  • ISO (2008) Quality management principles. [WWW document] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso9000-14000/iso9000/qmp.html (accessed 21 January 2008).

  • Jacobsen K, Hofman-Bang P and Nordby Jr R (2005) The IC Rating™ model by Intellectual Capital Sweden. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (4), 570–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS and Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (January/February), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kujansivu P (2006) Analysing methods for researching intellectual capital. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Visualising, Measuring and Managing Intangibles and Intellectual Capital. Maastricht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kujansivu P (2008) Operationalising intellectual capital management: choosing a suitable approach. Measuring Business Excellence 12 (2), 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujansivu P and Lönnqvist A (2008) Business process management as a tool for intellectual capital management. Knowledge and Process Management 15 (3), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujansivu P, Lönnqvist A, Jääskeläinen A and Sillanpää V (2007) Liiketoiminnan aineettomat menestystekijät. Talentum Media Oy, Helsinki (In Finnish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee RG and Dale BG (1998) Business process management: a review and evaluation. Business Process Management 4 (3), 214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lev B (2001) Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist A (2004) Measurement of intangible success factors: case studies on the design, implementation and use of measures. Doctoral Dissertation, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere.

  • Lönnqvist A and Kujansivu P (2007) Designing and implementing an intellectual capital management system: applying the Meritum Guidelines in practice. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies 1 (3/4), 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist A, Kujansivu P and Antola J (2006a) Are management accountants equipped to deal with intellectual capital? The Finnish Journal of Business Economics 55 (3), 355–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist A, Kujansivu P and Sillanpää V (2008) Intellectual capital management practices in Finnish companies. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1 (2), 130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnqvist A, Kujansivu P and Väisänen J (2006b) What are the effects of implementing an intellectual capital management system? In Proceedings of ICICKM 2006 3rd International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (REMENYI D, Ed), pp 285–294.

  • Lukka K and Kasanen E (1995) The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8 (5), 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr B, Gupta O, Pike S and Roos G (2003) Intellectual capital and knowledge management effectiveness. Management Decision 41 (8), 771–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr B, Schiuma G and Neely A (2004) Intellectual capital – defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management 10 (5), 551–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnachie G (1997) The management of intellectual assets: delivering value to the business. Journal of Knowledge Management 1 (1), 56–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon J (1988) Reliability and validity in field research: some strategies and tactics. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 1 (1), 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meritum (2001) Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles (intellectual capital report). Final Report of the Meritum Project.

  • Mettänen P (2005) Design and implementation of a performance measurement system for a research organization. Production Planning and Control 16 (2), 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritsen J, Thorsgaard Larsen H and Bukh PN (2005) Dealing with the knowledge economy: intellectual capital versus balanced scorecard. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (1), 8–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritsen J, Bukh PN, Larsen HT and Johansen MR (2002) Developing and managing knowledge through intellectual capital statements. Journal of Intellectual Capital 3 (1), 10–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely A, Adams C and Kennerley M (2002) The Performance Prism, The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success. Prentice Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson JA and Silverman BS (1998) Intellectual capital management strategy: the foundation of successful new business generation. Journal of Knowledge Management 1 (4), 320–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson CH and Ford D (2004) Introducing intellectual potential – the case of Alfa Javal. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (3), 414–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordóñez de Pablos P (2004) A guideline for building an intellectual capital statement: the 3R model. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital 1 (1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottosson S (2003) Participation action research – a key to improved knowledge of management. Technovation 23 (2), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palacios TMB and Galván RS (2007) Intangible measurement guidelines: a comparative study in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8 (2), 194–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty R and Guthrie J (2000) Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (2), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulic A (2000) VAICTM – an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal Technology Management 20 (5/6/7/8), 702–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos G, Pike S and Fernström L (2005) Managing Intellectual Capital in Practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salojärvi S (2005) A knowledge oriented change strategy – a means of SMEs to remain on an entrepreneurial path. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management 4.

  • Schiuma G, Lerro A and Sanitate D (2008) The intellectual capital dimensions of Ducati's turnaround: exploring knowledge assets grounding a change management program. International Journal of Innovation Management 12 (2), 161–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma G, Ordóñez de Pablos P and Spender JC (2007) Foreword: intellectual capital and company's value creation dynamics. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital 4 (4), 331–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ståhle P and Hong J (2002) Dynamic intellectual capital in global rapidly changing industries. Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (2), 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam C (2007) Knowledge productivity: designing and testing a method to diagnose knowledge productivity and plan for enhancement. Doctoral thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

  • Stewart TA (1997) Intellectual Capital, The New Wealth of Organizations. Doubleday, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan P (1999) Profiting from intellectual capital. Journal of Knowledge Management 3 (2), 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby K-E (1997) The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., United States of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2000) Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning 33 (1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Buren ME (1999) A yardstick for knowledge management. Training & Development 53 (5), 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss C, Tsikriktsis N and Frohlich M (2002) Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22 (2), 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiig KM (1997) Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management. Long Range Planning 30 (3), 399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu A (2005) The integration between balanced scorecard and intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (2), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu W-Y, Tsai H-J, Tseng K-Y and Lai M (2006) Assessment of intellectual capital management in Taiwanese IC design companies: using DEA and the Malmquist productivity index. R&D Management 36 (5), 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusof SM and Aspinwall E (2000) Total quality management implementation frameworks: comparison and review. Total Quality Management 11 (3), 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zambon S (2006) Is there a disciplinary field called “intangibles and intellectual capital”? Journal of Intellectual Capital 7 (4).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland

    Paula Kujansivu

Authors
  1. Paula Kujansivu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kujansivu, P. Is there something wrong with intellectual capital management models?. Knowl Manage Res Pract 7, 300–307 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.23

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.23

Keywords

Search

Navigation