Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intangibles: theory, categories, and the Kozminski matrix

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Analyzing the strategic significance of a firm's intellectual capital separates tangible assets from intangible assets, and demands close attention to how the latter are valued. Conventional methods based on cost or market value are of little relevance. Ultimately, the analysis turns on who makes the estimate and to what end. We argue for a third source of estimates, the same managers whose application of strategic assets sets the value-adding processes of the firm in motion. This is a constructivist approach that raises important theoretical and methodological questions about the nature of the firm and its value-creating capabilities. Objective measures cannot grasp these capabilities, and current efforts to establish such metrics are deeply counter-productive. We propose the ‘business model’ as the firm-specific natural language within which the future value of the intangible assets can be estimated.

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

  • Ahrens T (1996) Styles of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society 21 (2–3), 139–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcaniz L, Gomez-Bezares F and Roslender R (2011) Theoretical perspectives on intellectual capital: a backward look and a proposal for going forward. Accounting Forum 35 (2), 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair MM and Wallman SM (2003) The growing intangibles reporting discrepancy. In Intangible Assets: Values, Measures, and Risks (Hand J and Lev B, Eds), pp 449–468, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair MM and Wallman SMH (2001) Unseen Wealth. Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles. Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontis N (2001) Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews 3 (1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryer AR (2011) Accounting as learnt social practice: The case of the empresas recuperadas in Argentina. Accounting, Organisation and Society 36 (8), 478–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cañibano L, García-Ayuso M and Sánchez P (2000) Accounting for intangibles: a literature review. Journal of Accounting Literature 19, 102–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci D and Schiuma G (2007) Exploring intellectual capital concept in strategic management research. In Strategies for Information Technology and Intellectual Capital: Challenges and Opportunities (Joia AL, Ed), pp 10–28, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caves R (1980) Industrial organization, corporate strategy and structure. Journal of Economic Literature 18 (1), 64–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison J (2010) [In]visible [in]tangibles: visual portraits of the business elite. Accounting, Organisation and Society 35 (2), 165–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumay JC (2009) Intellectual capital measurement: a critical approach. Journal of Intellecual Capital 10 (2), 190–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson L and Malone MP (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company′s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots. Harper Business, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss NJ and Klein PG (2012) Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimón J (2005) Intellectual capital reporting and credit risk analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital 6 (1), 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood A (1983) On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organisation and Society 8 (2–3), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerman M and Manzin M (2008) Accounting treatment of goodwill in IFRS and US GAAP. Organizacija 41 (6), 218–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen J-A, Olsen B and Olaisen J (2005) Intellectual capital as a holistic management philosophy: a theoretical perspective. International Journal of Information Management 25 (2), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen B and Messner M (2010) Accounting and strategizing: a case study from new product development. Accounting, Organisation and Society 35 (2), 184–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannan G and Aulbur WG (2004) Intellectual capital: measurement effectiveness. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5 (3), 339–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev B (2004) Sharpening the intangibles edge. Harvard Business Review 82 (6), 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev B, Cañibano L and Marr B (2005) An accounting perspective on intellectual capital. In Perspectives on Intellectual Capital: Multidisciplinary Insights into Management, Measurement and Reporting (Marr B, Ed), pp 42–55, Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levy F and Duffey MR (2007) A review of existing methods to quantify intangible assets. Int. J. Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 4 (4/5), 382–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magretta J (2002) Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review 80 (5), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr B and Roos G (2005) A strategy perspective on intellectual capital. In Perspectives on Intellectual Capital – Multidisciplinary Insights into Management, Measurement and Reporting (Marr B, Ed), pp 28–41, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mosakowski E (1998) Entrepreneurial resources, organizational choices, and competitive outcomes. Organization Science 9 (6), 625–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritsen J, Larsen HT and Bukh PND (2001) Intellectual capital and the ‘capable firm’: narrating, visualising and numbering for managing knowledge. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26 (7–8), 735–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazari JA and Herremans IM (2007) Extended VAIC model: measuring intellectual capital components. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8 (4), 595–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell D, Meyer J, Spender J-C and Voelpel SC (2006) On collective creativity: an application of the theory of communicative action in situated practice. Critical Management Studies (CMS). Research Workshop, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta.

  • Osterwalder A and Pigneur Y (2010) Business Model Generation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1995) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Book  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 

  • Porter TM (1986) The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820–1900. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter TM (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power M (2001) Imagining, measuring and managing intangibles. Accounting, Organisation and Society 28 (7–8), 691–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GB (1960) Information and Investment. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson L (2000a) Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry 6 (2), 253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson L (2000b) Introduction – assessing alternative modes of qualitative and ethnographic research: how do we judge? Who judges? Qualitative Inquiry 6 (2), 251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roslender R and Fincham R (2004) Intellectual capital accounting in the UK: a field study perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 17 (2), 178–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer KR, Beed C and Sankey H (1997) Underdetermination in economics: the Duhem-Quine thesis. Economics and Philosophy 13 (1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender J-C (1979) Theory building and theory testing in strategic management. In Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning (Schendel D and Hofer C, Eds), pp 394–404, Little, Brown, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender J-C (2009) Organizational capital: concept, measure or heuristic? In Organizational Capital: Modelling, Measuring and Contextualising (Bounfour A, Ed), pp 5–23, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender J-C (2011) The problems and challenges of researching intellectual capital. In Managing Knowledge Assets and Business Value Creation in Organizations: Measures and dynamics (Schiuma G, Ed), pp 1–12, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spender J-C (2013) Herbert Alexander Simon: philosopher of the organizational life-world. In Oxford Handbook of Management Thinkers (Witzel M and Warner M, Eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam C (2009) Intellectual liabilities: lessons from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. VINE 39 (1), 92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zéghal D and Anis M (2010) Analysing value added as an indicator of intellectual capital and its consequences on company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11 (1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESADE & LUSEM, Spain

    J. -C. Spender

  2. Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland

    Paulina Bednarz-Łuczewska

  3. Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK

    Andreea Bordianu

  4. Artesis – Association University of Antwerp, Product Development, Belgium

    Sarah Rohaert

Authors
  1. J. -C. Spender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulina Bednarz-Łuczewska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreea Bordianu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah Rohaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. -C. Spender.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spender, JC., Bednarz-Łuczewska, P., Bordianu, A. et al. Intangibles: theory, categories, and the Kozminski matrix. Knowl Manage Res Pract 11, 101–111 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.10

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.10

Keywords

Search

Navigation