imp.pdf Intcap.pdf

7/27/2019 imp.pdf Intcap.pdf

1/9

-151-

ISSN 1392 2785 Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2010, 21(2), 151-159

Model of Organizations Intellectual Capital Measurement

Lina Uziene

Kaunas University of TechnologyK. Donelaicio str. 73, LT-44309, Kaunas, Lithuaniae-mail: [email protected]

Intellectual capital theory has been active for twodecades already. Despite that many unanswered questionsin theory and business practice are still left. Issues ofintellectual capital essence, structure, measurement and its

impact on business performance are still being researched.Managers constantly look for the new solutions of

recognizing, measuring and managing intellectual capitalin order to maximise the value of knowledge, develop new

forms of competitiveness and increase organizationspotential.Intellectual capital measurement has been identified as

one of the most important issues for todays business

success. Plenty of intellectual capital measurementmethods can be found in business literature. New methodsappear within the intellectual capital theory continually.Some of them are implemented in business practice, othersremain as theoretical suggestions important for furthersubject research. But despite that, a common view onintellectual capital measurement still does not exist.

Results of the comparative analysis of intellectualcapital measurement methods are discussed and the main

bottlenecks of intellectual capital measurement methodologyare revealed in this paper. Based on these results themodel of organizations intellectual capital measurementis proposed here.

Intellectual capital measurement is specified as amulti-stage process of information accumulation and

interpretation within the model proposed. Six stages ofintellectual capital measurement process are formalized.

The process starts with the situation analysis in whichmeasurement problem reveals and the particularmeasurement target development. It continues withmeasurement possibilities assessment, measurementmethod selection and organization of its implementation.

The process results in the decision making stage. Twoalternative scenarios of the rational intellectual capitalmeasurement process are briefly discussed in this paperand the particular measurement techniques are proposedfor each scenario.

The model proposed summarizes knowledge ofintellectual capital measurement. It intends to helpmanagers understand intellectual capital measurement

process as a whole and implement intellectual capitalmeasurement solutions purposefully and in series.

Keywords: intellectual capital, intellectual capitalmeasurement, measurement process, model.

Introduction

Intellectual capital (further IC) measurement issues arediscussed within the research of almost all IC theory gurus(Sveiby, 1997; Sullivan, et al., 2000; Joia, 2000; MPherson,2001; Guthrie, 2001; Stewart, 2001; Bontis, 2002; Lev,Daum, 2004; Edvinsson, et. al., 2005; Pike, Fernstrom &Roos, G., 2005; Andriessen, 2005, Mouritsen, J., 2009, etc.).Most of them offer their own IC measurement methods.

Lithuanian studies approve the relevance of IC measurement(Mikuleniene, Jucevicius, 2000; Legenzova, Scetko, 2001;Anskaitis, et al., 2006, Vaskeliene, 2008; Uziene, 2009;Valanciene, Gimzauskiene, 2009; Strumickas, et al., 2009),

but mostly explore issues of its essence, structure andreporting or cover organizations performance measurementissues in a broader sense. Today we have lots of differentmodels and frameworks, but IC measurement methodestablished and universally accepted in business practice stilldoes not exist. Comparative analysis of different ICmeasurement methods is quite rare in theory. Bontis (2001)and Andriessen (2004) are known for their strongcontribution to this field. But the question, what complicatesthe development of IC measurement methodology, has not

been clearly answered yet.What complicates the discovery of universally

accepted IC measurement method? What factors should betaken into account when determining the target of ICmeasurement and selecting measurement techniques? Howshould a process of IC measurement look like from theideological point of view? The answers certainly lie in thedeep comparative analysis of different IC measurementmethods, identification of the bottlenecks of methodologyand the design of new solutions.

The following question outlines the key problem ofthis paper: how should organizations IC be measured inorder to make management decisions as well as to

disclose information for external stakeholders? Thispaper is intended to consolidate knowledge of previousresearch and propose a conceptual model based on it. Themodel proposed should refer to the bottlenecks of ICmeasurement methodology. It should provide guidelinesfor the implementation of the reasoned IC measurement

process and selection of appropriate measurement techniques.The subject of this research is intellectual capital

measurement.The main objective of this research is to propose the

conceptual model, which would formalize the process oforganizations intellectual capital measurement in thecontext of the satisfaction of internal and externalstakeholder information needs.


2/9

LinaUziene.ModelofOrganizations IntellectualCapitalMeasurement

- 152 -

The methods of this research: Constructivism as aprevailing epistemological approach has been selected forthis research. The early stage of IC measurementmethodology development and the impossibility of usingquantitative methods complicate the application of

positivism. Theoretical findings of this paper are based onthe scientific research of Lithuanian and foreign papers.

Comparative analysis, synthesis and modelling methodsare used when designing the model. Case study method isapplied when testing the model in a particular knowledgeorganization.

Diversity of methods

Dozens of IC measurement methods can be found inIC literature today. Most of them differ in their IC

perception, measurement techniques and other features.Method established and universally accepted in business

practice still does not exist. Several stages of thedevelopment of IC measurement methods could behighlighted here. The first one is related with theappearance of the former solutions of IC measurement andmanagement (Navigator (Skandia, 1995), Intangible AssetMonitor (Sveiby, 1997), etc.). Such methods were designedas a set of different IC-related indicators and intended tocapture intangibles organizations have. The search forcritical IC indicators is still relevant in theory as well as in

practice. The second stage methods (Holistic Value Approach(Pike, Roos, 2000), Inclusive Value Methodology (MPherson,Pike, 2001), etc.) are intended not only to capture IC, butto follow transformations of it from one form to another aswell. The main purpose of these methods was to establishthe links between different kinds of IC as well as to assessthe impact of changing IC performance on business results.The third stage is known for its efforts to develop a singleIC indicator (IC-Index (Roos et al, 1997), IC-Rating (Joia,2000), etc.) standardized and easy to use. Unfortunately,such indicators were rejected in practice as uninformativeand useless in management process. And the final stage,which is known for its regard to the strategicmanagement. Such methods (Intellectual Capital Statement(Mouritsen, 2001), Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan, Norton,2004), etc.) are intended to capture the impact of managementdecisions on business performance.

In order to find out the prevailing methodologicalfeatures among the IC measurement methods, thecomparative analysis of thirty different methods was

performed by the author previously (Vaskeliene, 2006,2007). According to the results different IC measurementmethods are based on different management paradigms,and differ in their theoretical background, methodologicalapproach, number and type of indicators used, benchmarksapplied, techniques implemented and other features.

When performing comparative analysis differentmethodological features were distinguished as importantand explored (derivation paradigm; conception; empiricalevidence; problem solved; methodical reasoning; causaldirection; coverage; time scale; number of indicators;internal-external measurement indications; benchmarks;

dominant measurement approach; competitive comparability;restrictions of use; advantages; disadvantages; practicalapplicability; etc.).

It emerged that majority of the IC measurementmethods were created during the last decade and thedevelopment of these methods was influenced by the ICtheory mostly. Despite the variety of definitions anddescriptions used, the most popular concept among themethods is Intellectual Capital. Nearly half of themethods are designed in the outcome-reason direction. The

rest are based on the analysis of the reasons for present ICperformance as well as the forecast of its futureperformance. From the coverage point of view IC withinthe methods is mostly treated as an entity of undisclosedorganizational potential that influence business

performance. An obvious interdependence between thederivation paradigm of the methods and their positioningon a time scale has been revealed. Methods developedwithin the finance theory are mostly based on retrospectiveinformation, while the IC theory methods are orientedtowards the measurement of organizational potential farmore. Methods developed within the finance theoryinvolve monetary measures. Measurement results of these

methods are based on a single indicator mostly. While theIC theory methods are distinguished for the variety ofmeasures used and their measurement results are presentedas a single indicator the same as a set of indicators. Anobvious interrelationship between the problem solved withinthe methods and benchmarks used exists. Benchmarks aremore common within the internal measurement methods.While competitive comparability is more relevant withinthe external reporting. Investigation of the measurementapproach applied reveals that the state measurement andthe flow measurement are equally important. Manymethods during the research were rejected because ofvarious restrictions related to particular circumstances of

implementation, such as total reliance on the type ofindustry or special business environment. Just a fewmethods are common within business practice. Others arenot clearly reasoned, lack functional and technical clarityand are solely based on theoretical assumptions.

Advantages and disadvantages are observed amongthe qualitative and quantitative, financial and non-financial,single and multi-indicator, benchmark included or non-included methods. But one of the most important issuesobserved during the development of IC measurementmethods is a particular problem solved with the help of themethod. Based on this point of view all methods can begrouped into two groups:

IC measurement methods designed for internalmanagement purpose; IC measurement methods designed for external

reporting purpose.These two groups of methods apparently differ in their

nature, prevailing measurement techniques andmethodological features. The polarity of differentmethodological features among the IC measurementmethods within these groups was detected. This evidently

prompts the divergence of two separate directions within theIC measurement methodology.

Bottlenecks of methodology

Some systematic shortcomings are not avoided in thedevelopment of IC measurement methodology (Vaskeliene,


3/9

ISSN13922785InzinerineEkonomikaEngineeringEconomics,2010,21(2),151159

- 153 -

2007). First of all, methods are often designed withoutpaying regard to measurement context. This guides to theinert operation of traditional measurement techniques andthe absent of clear requirements for measurement process. Inorder to get useful measurement results, an expedience of ICmeasurement process must be perceived. Problem solvedwith the help of the method must be realized and a particular

stakeholder and his needs must be identified. It is necessary torealize what is the background of the demand of ICmeasurement, what environment this demand comes from,who is going to use a particular method, what results and inwhat way are going to be used.

Overvalue of the role of a customer (as a stakeholder) isobserved within some methods. Treating customer as a singleincome source in the value creation process distorts conceptionof the coherence of interests among different stakeholders.This leads to the application of traditional financialtechniques, cost-income approach most often, and limits ICdisclosure to scarce non-versatile information. From the valuecreation point of view organizations relationship with other

stakeholders must be treated as much important asrelationship with customers. IC performance should beassessed not only from the financial point of view, but in a

broader sense, for example, taking into account aspects ofsocial responsibility, networking or sustainable development.Monetary measures are solely based on retrospectiveinformation and do not meet the nature of intangibles.Giving financial measurement relatively bigger prominencethan other techniques is incorrect.

Another shortcoming of the IC measurement methodologyis an ambition to standardize measurement techniquetrying to squeeze all organizations under the unifiedmeasurement framework or the unified set of indicators. In

this way organization loses the ability to reveal its uniquecompetitive advantage, which is crucial in knowledgeeconomy. Attempts to measure organizations IC using asingle indictor are not appropriate as well. Disregard to thedependence of IC measurement on the uniqueness oforganizational strategy along with a wide range of ICforms complicate the development and interpretation of asingle indicator, and therefore should be treated as irrational.

Strategic reasoning is one of the crucial methodologicalfeatures when measuring IC both for internal management

purpose and for external reporting. Disregard to this issueimpedes perception of measurement results. As far as IC isnot equal to intangibles (capital is commonly defined as a part

of the assets, which participate in value creation process) andcomes out of the unique strategy of the organization, strategicbackground should be taken into account when measuring IC.Of course, this complicates the comparability of measurementresults among organizations, but increases validity andreliance on measurement results, used for management andinvestment decisions. Benchmarks solve the problem

partially by adding colours to measurement results andopening space for interpretation. Benchmarks providemanagers with the ability to monitor implementation ofstrategy, while investors are provided with the ability toassess quality of management or compare performance ofdifferent organizations.

From the measurement approach point of view, boththe state measurement and the flow measurement are

considered as necessary. Methods based solely on the stateapproach do not provide full view on IC performance.Transformations from one IC form to another as well astheir impact on financial results are important not only formanagers, but for external stakeholders as well, forexample, investors. Flow measurement opens the door toforecasts and hypothesizing. Therefore, consideration of

the combination of both the state measurement and theflow measurement should be considered when designingIC measurement solutions.

And eventually issues related to the implementation ofmeasurement process are often ignored within the ICmeasurement methods. Methods are designed withoutconsideration of their practical implementation andanticipation of final results often. Some of them are toocomplicated to adapt in practice, have methodologicallyunreasoned procedures or worthless results. Disregard tomeasurement circumstances as well as the absence of theclear methodological reasoning of measurement processleads to the expensive and overcomplicated measurement

procedures and therefore to the unpopularity withinbusiness practice.The key bottlenecks of IC measurement methodology

development along with the recommendations for how toescape them while developing new solutions aresummarized in Table 1.

Table 1

IC measurement bottlenecks and recommendations

Bottlenecks Recommendations

Unspecified measurement problem.Why is it necessary to measure?

Initial situation must be examined.IC measurement problem must beidentified and explored.

Unspecified IC measurementtarget. What is a target ofmeasurement process?

Clear target of IC measurementprocess must be defined.

Disregard to measurementcircumstances. What are thecircumstances of measurement?

IC measurement possibilitiesmust be considered based onmeasurement requirements andrestrictions.

Abundance of techniques. Whatparticular technique should be

used? What should determine theselection of techniques?

Measurement technique thatsatisfies the initial situation andmeasurement targets must beselected. If such measurementmethod does not exist, an originalmeasurement solution must bedeveloped.

Methodologically unreasonedmeasurement process.How should

measurement process be organized?

Implementation procedures ofmeasurement process must be

created.Unpredicted appliance ofmeasurement results. Whatdecisions it will be possible to make

based on measurement results?

It should be possible to makealternative management orassessment decisions based onmeasurement results.

Structure of the model

Models and frameworks proposed as e result of themost recent theoretical and empirical research(Smaliukiene, 2007; Juceviciene, et al., 2007; Urbanskiene, etal., 2008; Staskeviciute et al., 2008; Diskiene, et al., 2008;Klimov, et al., 2008; Schieg, 2009; Gatautis, et al., 2009;Kaklauskas, et al., 2009). help authors to reveal their

position on different unsettled management issues. In orderto organize any conceptual model, sequence of the


4/9


- 154 -

common management problem solving process, whichstarts with an environment analysis and terminates in aresult interpretation, can be applied.

Accordingly the development of IC measurementmodel should be also based on the clear problem definition.Problem defined determines selection of a propermeasurement technique, which in turn influence measurement

process and corresponding decision-making. Stages of theIC measurement process are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Structure of the IC measurement model

The model consists of six leading stages that enablesystematic (realizing organization as a subsystem of anundivided external business environment, and the IC

measurement as a parallel process within alreadyfunctioning internal system) and purposeful (planning theresults of measurement process) IC measurement process.Systematic outlook makes it possible to realize backgroundof the problem solved with the help of measurement, tochoose appropriate IC measurement techniques as well as toestablish reasoned measurement process.

The six-stage IC measurement process eliminates the

bottlenecks of IC measurement methodology mentionedabove and provides guidelines for the rational ICmeasurement process.

Situation analysis in which measurement problem isrevealed is the base for IC measurement. In this processstage two directions of external and internal environmentanalysis are separated and later integrated. Situationanalysis reveals the demand of IC measurement and

provides a systematic view on different internal andexternal success factors. The change vector present

requested situation helps to identify a particular ICmeasurement problem. It confirms or denies a need for ICmeasurement. Otherwise considered problem becomes atarget of the other management fields (knowledgemanagement, finance, efficiency control, etc.) in theorganization. The present-requested situation gap founddetermines corresponding target development.

k

VA tVV )( )()( I (1)

where:V

(A) the set of external factors;V

(V) the set of internal factors;tk k- particular IC measurement target; - implication; I - conjunction.

After the situation is analysed and the change vector isdetermined, IC measurement target is developed. For themeasurement process to be reasoned and meaningful itmust be target oriented and this target should match thesituation directly.

In this stage two basic IC measurement directions arerevealed: measurement for the internal and external

purposes. Trying to satisfy both of them leads to satisfyingneither of them. The change vector presentrequestedsituation determines a particular target tk development,which in turn influences the choice of measurementmethod ml.

lk

mt , Mml

(2)

where:ml l particular IC measurement method (technique);M set of IC measurement methods.The third model stage is intended to assess IC

measurement possibilities, that are determined by thechange vector identified, measurement target developedand organizations capability found. Measurement targetdictates measurement extent, time input, the finance andother requirements. From the other side theserequirements are restricted by organizations capability:size, personnel busyness, scarce financial resource, degree

of concentration on the main projects and activities, etc.

The balance should be found between measurementrequirements })()( PcP gG = and restrictions { })()( AhA gG = ,which must ensure that measurement target is reached withthe optimal (minimal) inputs of time, finance and otherresource. The interaction between requirements andrestrictions is expressed under the equalization principle:

)()( AP GG (3)

s

AP gGG )( )()( I (4)where:G

(P) set of requirements;

G(A)

set of restrictions;gs s- particular possibilities combination; - equalization ratio.

STAGE 1: SITUATION ANALYSIS

Ismeasurementnecessary?

Whatisthe

targetof

measurement?

Whatarethe

measurement

possibilities?

W

hatmeasurement

techniquesshouldbeused?

External environment analysis

Internal environment analysis

Do we need

IC measurement?

YES

NO

Present situation Requested situation

Constant situation monitoring

STAGE 2: TARGET DEVELOPMENT

STAGE 3: MEASUREMENT POSSIBILITIES ASSESSMENT

STAGE 6: DECISION MAKING

STAGE 5: MEASUREMENT PROCESS ORGANIZATION

STAGE 4: MEASUREMENT METHOD SELECTION

Is standard method suitable?

YES NO

Implementation of

standard method

Design and

implementation of unique

measurement solution

Howshouldmeasurement

processbeorganized?

Whatdecisions

shouldbe

made?

Measurement requirements analysis

Measurement restrictions analysis

Measurement method siutability test

Looking for solutions in alternative

management fields

Feedback

V(A) = {v(A)n}

V(V) = {v(V)m}

T= {tf}

G(P)= {g(P)c}

G(A)= {g(A)h}

M(V)= {m(V)a}

S= {se}


5/9


- 155 -

The pricebenefit balance setting in this stage is quitecomplicated and is often based on the subjective, intuitiveattitude of managers.

Fundamental decision concerning the suitability ofparticular IC measurement method (technique) is made inthe fourth model stage. Suitability of measurementtechnique is determined by the results of previous stages.

),,,( )()( skVAl gtVVfm = (5)There are two possibilities for managers here. The standardIC measurement method could be implemented or theunique measurement solution developed. In previousresearch (Bontis, 2001, Andriessen, 2004, Vaskeliene,2006) IC measurement methods are classified according totwo model scenarios. Their advantages and disadvantagesare highlighted and application opportunities revealed.Research results and practical experience enable managersto decide about the applicability of methods in the

particular management situations. If a suitable methoddoes not exist (unfortunately it is a common situation incurrent theorys development period), the unique ICmeasurement solution should be designed andimplemented. The guidelines for its design are proposedfurther. In the second section of paper the suggestion ofrational measurement principles as well as the offer ofappropriate measurement techniques will be discussed.

In the fifth model stage the process of IC measurementis organized in practice. This is an integrated processinfluenced by the internal and external organizationalfactors, measurement targets and selected measurementtechniques. The process depends on the following answersto the questions like is process terminative or

permanent?, how long does the process last?, how

many hierarchical levels of personnel participate in it?, isprocess organized in the top-down or down-topdirection?.Feedback plays an important role within the ICmeasurement because it enables organizational learningand process quality improvement.

And finally in the last model stage the results of ICmeasurement are summarized and alternative decisions aremade. A set of decisions { }

esS= varies from strategic

management to the particular intangible resource orfunctional process management issues. The deeper ICmeasurement penetrates into organizations business

philosophy, the more opportunities it offers.

Alternative scenarios

From the functional point of view IC measurement isintended to satisfy information needs of internal andexternal stakeholders that are quite different in their nature.IC measurement for the internal management purpose must

perform the role of managerial leverage, revealproblematic areas for decision-making as well as motivatefor improvement. IC measurement for the externalreporting must disclosure the real state of the resourceorganizations have and provide clear, relevant and reliabledata for different external stakeholders.

Consequently two alternative scenarios should be

explored within the IC measurement model. The maindifferences between them are distinguished in Table 2.Special attention should be paid to the fourth and the fifth

model stages, where the design and implementation oforganizations unique IC measurement solution along withthe use of standard measurement methods are considered.

Table 2

Comparison of the IC measurement scenarios

Model stage

IC measurement for

internal managementpurpose

IC measurement for

external reportingpurpose

Situationanalysis

Effectiveness of intangibleresource and value creationprocess are analysed.External environment isexamined as much as it isimportant for identificationand management oforganizations success factors.

Traditions of informationdisclosure and the bestpractice cases play animportant role. Thedetailed analysis ofstakeholder needs isperformed. Organizationscompetitive advantagesare analysed.

Targetdevelopment

IC measurement targetsconcerning the strategic andoperational management aredeveloped. Striving tosatisfy requirements of

strategic management andsecurity of the effectivenessof particular intangibleresource are primary.

IC measurement targetsconcerning the externalinformation disclosureare developed. Strivingto satisfy the needs of

one or severalstakeholders is primary.

Measurementpossibilityassessment

The benefit of ICmeasurement fororganization is emphasized.

The balance betweeninformation disclosureprice and stakeholdersneeds satisfaction isweighted.

Measurementmethodselection

Methods that satisfymeasurement targets thebest are selected. Priority isgiven to the measurement ofparticular IC sorts.

Priority is given to thediversity of IC sorts(human, relationshipand structural) and tothe use of standardizedmethods.

Measurementprocessorganization

Measurement process ispermanent. Importance of

feedback is emphasized.

Measurement process isterminative. The result

of measurementprocess is the ICinformation disclosure(report).

Decisionmaking

Direct and indirect ICmanagement decisions aremade. Their effect ismonitored.

Alternative decisionsrelated to informationdisclosure are made.

Based on the bottlenecks of IC measurementmethodology, the rational measurement principles andcorresponding measurement techniques are proposedfurther.

IC measurement for internal management purpose

Research of the methodological features recommendedwithin this scenario (Vaskeliene, 2006) shows that themost reasonable, uncovering maximum information,revealing organizations potential and easily applicable in

practice are measurement methods designed as the set ofindicators. Indicators based on organizations strategyalong with the benchmarks reflecting organizations

progress should be employed here. Indicators should beselected intentionally and should match organizationsstrategic objectives and value creation process.Benchmarks should reflect organizations progress inreaching the objectives and implementing the strategy.

Rational process of IC measurement for internalmanagement purpose should:- enable purposeful IC management and development;


6/9


- 156 -

- be based on organizations policy, strategy and objectives;- be flexible and respond to external and internal

environment changes;- be clear, methodologically reasoned and easily implemented

in different types of organization;- help to identify management priorities in all functional

levels and activities;

-

reveal IC management shortcomings and enable toeliminate them;- stimulate constant management improvement with the

help of feedback.Measurement techniques proposed for the rational

process implementation are: value chain designing; success factors identification and corresponding

indicators selection; causal interrelationship testing.These techniques enable systematic and purposeful

measurement process, help to identify and implementmanagement priorities and respond to the internal and

external changes of business environment.IC measurement for external reporting purpose

Research of the methodological features recommendedwithin this scenario revealed a set of requirements for therational process of IC information disclosure. ICmeasurement methods designed on the basis of the set ofindicators meet these requirements the best. Measuresshould be selected according to the clearly consideredformat and be based on the unified way of their selection,illustration and interpretation. In the databases accumulation

process unique information not necessarily needed for theother functional processes should be invoked.

Rational process of IC measurement for externalinformation reporting purpose should be based on further

principles:- reported information should be presented in a clear,

consequent and understandable format;- reported information should be reliable, comparable

(from the dynamic point of view and among competitors)and should not raise any interpretation doubts forexternal stakeholders;

- reported information should indicate present situationand perspectives of organizations IC state and itsmanagement efficiency;

- reported information should satisfy stakeholder needsat the maximum level, while the measurement processshould empower organization to work towards this;

- measurement process should motivate organization toimprove among competitors and work towardsreaching the objectives;

- measurement process should be based onorganizations experience and existing data, while theformation of a new database should be based on thebenefit-costs analysis.Measurement techniques proposed for the rational

process implementation are: essay disclosure; core competencies identification and corresponding

indicators selection; different illustration-interpretation meansimplementation.

Set of indicators along with the essay and differenttechniques of illustration enable managers to disclose the

present and the future performance of IC. Combination ofthese techniques enables to present information in a clearand reliable way, to disclose the quality of managementand stimulate managers to improve.

The prior recommendations are based not only on the

comparative analysis of different IC measurementmethods, but on empirical research as well. Case studymethod was selected for the empirical exploration of themodel proposed. Observations, in-deep interviews,investigation of original documents and similar techniqueswere used while carrying out the exploration. Two differententerprise levels within the case organization (foreign capitalcompany operating in Lithuanian IT service market) wereexplored. IC measurement issues related to the internalmanagement were investigated at divisional level, whileissues related to the external IC reporting were explored atenterprise level.

A set of indicators along with the benchmarks is used

in order to measure and monitor IC performance atdivisional level. Orientation towards essential IC factorshelps managers concentrate attention on the essence ofvalue creation and strategic goals. Public IC reports are

prepared and published at enterprise level annually.Department of external communication is responsible forthis. With the help of annual IC reports managers attemptto provide external stakeholders with the true and accurateinformation on IC. Different indicators (mostlyquantitative), texts and illustrative figures are used when

preparing IC reports at a case organization.Case study research revealed that measurement

techniques recommended above were applicable in

business practice. The case organization using thesetechniques makes obvious progress in IC measurement andgets real advantage of its management.

Principle of the random case selection was ignoredduring the research. It was quite hard to find the caseorganization, which makes progress in IC measurement,

because there are few such organizations in Lithuania.However, case study research is the preferable one whileinvestigating IC measurement issues in this stage of thedevelopment of the IC theory, even if it faces someenvironmental pitfalls.

Conclusions

- There are lots of IC measurement methods proposedwithin the IC theory. Different IC measurementmethods are based on different management

paradigms; differ in their IC conceptions, theoreticalbackground, number and type of indicators used,benchmarks applied, techniques implemented andother methodological features. The method establishedand universally accepted in business practice does notexist.

- The biggest bottlenecks of the IC measurementmethodology are disregard to measurement context,distortion of the coherence of interests among different

stakeholders, prominence of the financial techniquesamong others, ambition to standardize measurementtechnique or to establish a single standardized


7/9


- 157 -

indicator, lack of strategic reasoning, absence ofbenchmarks as well as disregard to the issues related tothe possibilities and practical implementation ofmeasurement technique.

- Organizations IC measurement is a multi-stageprocess of information consolidation and interpretationthat should be implemented in the following steps:

1.

Situation analysis (IC measurement demandcomes from the change of organizations internaland external environment).

2. Target development (IC measurement targetshould correspond to the specifics of problematicsituation, be concrete and clearly defined).

3. Measurement possibilities assessment (ICmeasurement possibilities are assessed under theinterface between measurement requirements andrestrictions).

4. Measurement method selection (standardmeasurement methods are selected or unique ICmeasurement solutions are a designed subject to

the measurement situation, targets and possibilities).5. Measurement process organization (measurementprocess success depends on the knowledge andinterest of process participants, flow of the parallelorganizational processes, culture, value system andother internal factors).

6. Decision-making (IC measurement results aresummarized and alternative decisions are made).

- One of the two alternative scenarios (IC measurement forinternal management or IC measurement for externalreporting) should be accepted when measuring IC. Aset of indicators based on organizations strategyalong with the benchmarks could be employed when

measuring IC for the internal management purpose.Value chain design, success factors and observation ofcausal interrelationships among them could be usedhere as stimulating constant improvement, disclosing ICweaknesses, helpful for management prioritiesachievement, flexible in front of internal and externalenvironmental changes and simple to implement.When measuring IC for the external reporting, thecore competence theory along with the set ofindicators, essay and different illustration-interpretation techniques could be used. Suchreporting format enables managers to disclosureinformation on IC in a comparable, reliable and

understandable way, reveals organizations ability toperform in the future and ensures its democracy byinvolving external stakeholders into the management

processes.

References

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

Andriessen, D. (2005). Implementing the KPMG Value Explorer: Critical success factors for applying IC measurementtools.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 474-488.

Anskaitis, A., Bareisis, V., & Lydeka, Z. (2006). Konstruktyvistinis ir analitinis poi

ris

intelektin

kapital. InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics(4), 63-68.

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

Bontis, N. (2002). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and advacing the stateof the field. World Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings, 621-642.

Diskiene, D., Galiniene, B., & Marcinskas, A. (2008). A strategic management model for economic development.Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(3), 375-387.

Edvinsson, L., Hofman-Bang, P., & Jacobsen, K. (2005). Intellectual capital in waiting a strategic IC challenge.Handbook of Business Strategy, 6(1), 133-140.

Gatautis, R., Kulvietis, G., & Vitkauskaite, E. (2009). Lithuanian eGovernment Interoperability Model. InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics(2), 38-48.

Guthrie, J. (2001). The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital.Journal of Intellectual Capital,2(1), 27-41.

Joia, L. A. (2000). Measuring intangible corporate assets. Linking business strategy with intellectual capital. Journal ofIntellectual Capital,1(1), 68-84.

Juceviciene, V., Stonciuviene, N., & Zinkeviciene, D. (2007) The cost control model of food processing enterprises: thecase of Lithuanian agricultural sector. Transformations in Business & Economics, 2(12), 153-169.

Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Raslanas, S. (2009). Modelling of real estate sector: the case for Lithuania.Transformations in Business & Economics, 8(1), 101-120.

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Klimov, R., & Merkuryev, Y. (2008). Simulation model for supply chain reliability evaluation. Technological and

Economic Development of Economy, 14(3), 300-311.Legenzova, R., Scetko, S. (2001). Intelektualaus kapitalo koncepcija Lietuvos finans rinkos kontekste. OrganizacijVadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 18, 73-85.


8/9


- 158 -

Lev, B., & Daum, J. H. (2004). The dominance of intangible assets: consequences for enterprise management andcorporate reporting.Measuring Business Excellence, 8(1), 6-17.

MPherson P. K., & Pike S. (2001). Accounting, empirical measurement and intellectual capital. Journal of IntellectualCapital,2(3), 246-260.

Mikuleniene, R., Jucevicius, R. (2000). Organizacijos intelektinis kapitalas: sandaros ir pagrindinisvok interpretacijos.Social Sciences, 3(24), 65-76.

Mouritsen, J. (2009). Classification, measurement and the ontology of intellectual capital entities. Journal of HumanResource Costing & Accounting, 13(2), 154-162.

Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H. T. & Bukh, P. N. (2001). Intellectual capital and a capable firm: narrating, visualising andnumbering for managing knowledge.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 735-762.

Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2000). Intellectual capital measurement and a holistic value approach. Works Institute Journal42.

Pike, S., Fernstrom, L., & Roos, G. (2005). Intellectual capital: Management approach in ICS Ltd. Journal of IntellectualCapital, 6(4), 489-509.

Roos, G., Roos, J., Dragonetti, N. & Edvinsson, L. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New BusinessLandscape. New York: New York University Press.

Schieg, M. (2009). Model for integrated project management.Journal of Business Economics and Management, 10(2), 149-160.

Skandia (1995). Value-creating processes: intellectual capital. A suplement to Skandias 1995 annual report.

Smaliukien, R. (2007). Stakeholders' impact on the environmental responsibility: Model design and testing. Journal ofBusiness Economics and Management, 8(3), 213-223.

Staskeviciute, I., & Neverauskas, B. (2008). The Intelligent University's Conceptual Model. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(4), 53-58.

Stewart, T. A. (2001). Intellectual capital: ten years later, how far weve come.Fortune, 143(11), 28 May. 192-193.

Strumickas, M., & Valanciene, L. (2009). Research of management accounting changes in Lithuanian businessorganizations.Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(3), 26-32.

Sullivan, P. H. Jr, & Sullivan P. H. Sr (2000). Valuing intangible companies An intellectual capital approach.Journal ofIntellectual Capital, 1(4), 328-340.

Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The Intangible Assets Monitor.Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 2(1), 73-97.

Urbanskiene, R., Zostautiene, D., & Chreptaviciene, V. (2008). The model of creation of customer relationshipmanagement (CRM) system.Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(3), 51-59.

Uziene, L., Staliuniene, J. D. (2009). Intelektinio kapitalo auditas: samprata, uzdaviniai ir realios galimybes. Economicsand Management-2009, 123-131.

Valanciene, L., Gimzauskiene, E. (2009). Dimensions of performance measurement system in changes research.InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics(4), 41-48.

Vaskeliene, L. (2006). Organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metod dichotomijos raika: teorin studija irempiriniai rodymai. Social Research, 2(8), 150-159.

Vaskeliene, L. (2007). Development of organizational intellectual capital measurement methodology: problems andsolutions.Economics and Management-2007, 165-173.

Vaskeliene, L. (2007). Quantitative research approach versus qualitative within the organizational intellectual capitalperformance measurement research. Changes in Social and Business Environment : proceedings of the 2ndinternational conference, November 8-9, 2007, Panevezys, Lithuania : selected papers, 284-290.

Vaskeliene, L., Selepen, J. (2008). Informacijos apie intelektin

kapital

atskleidimas Lietuvos akcinse bendrov

se.Economics and Management-2008, 88-97.

Lina Uien

Organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo modelis

Santrauka

Organizacij intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas kaip vadybos mokslini tyrim problema tyrinjama jau daugiau kaip du deimtmeius. Intelektiniokapitalo vertinimo metodika vis dar nra nusistovjusi. Mokslinje literatroje sutinkama daug bandym analizuoti intelektinio kapitalo vertinimometod esm, kritini i metod vertinim, bandym velgti silpnsias ir stiprisias puses. Ir nors kai kurios apiuopiamos i metod pasirinkimogairs jau velgiamos tam tikrose vadybinse situacijose, vis dar tebediskutuojama dl kiekybini ir kokybini, finansini ir nefinansini bei kitintelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metod taikymo slyg, prasms ir naudingumo.

iame straipsnyje sprendiam problem galima ireikti klausimu: kaip vertinti organizacijos intelektin kapital siekiant priimti organizacijosvaldymo sprendimus ir patenkinti informacinius iorini suinteresuot dalyvi poreikius? Tyrimu siekiama agreguoti teorin intelektinio kapitalovertinimo patirt ir pasilyti konceptual organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo model, kuris, atsivelgiant susiklosiusi situacij, galint

pasirinkti racionalaus vertinimo principus ir technikas.Tyrimo objektas intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas.


9/9


- 159 -

Tyrimo tikslas sudaryti konceptual organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo model, formalizuojant intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo procestenkinant vidiniir iorinisuinteresuotdalyviinformacinius poreikius.

Tyrimo metodika. Modelio sudarymas grindiamas interpretacine konstruktyvistine epistemologine prieiga. Tyrimo ivados formuluojamosremiantis Lietuvos ir usienio autori moksliniais darbais. Sudarant model taikomi lyginamosios analizs, sintezs ir modeliavimo metodai. Modelisempirikai aprobuotas taikant atvejo analizs metodpasirinktoje iniorganizacijoje.

Intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metod gausa ir aiki koncepcini metodikos pltots krypi nebuvimas veria iekoti bd, kaip apibendrintimetodikos pltot. Todl straipsnis pradedamas intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodvairovs apraymu ir palyginamosios metod analizs, atliktosankstesniuose autors tyrimuose, rezultatapibendrinimu. Palyginamoji analiz tyrime svarbi kaip intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodikos agregavimo,sintetinimo ir paangi idjatrankos priemon.

Ianalizavus trisdeimt literatroje pateikiam intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metod, nustatyta, jog ie metodai formuojasi skirting vadybosparadigm kontekste, tarpusavyje skiriasi intelektinio kapitalo ir verts kategorij samprata, indikatori skaiiumi, matavimo vienetais, verinaudojimo pobdiu, pozicionavimu laiko ayje, vyraujaniomis vertinimo prieigomis ir kitais bdingais poymiais. Taiau vienas i svarbiausipoymi, lemiani intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodikos formavimsi ir jos specifik, yra taikant metod sprstina problema. iuo poiriu visusmetodus tikslinga suskirstyti dvi grupes: 1)intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodai, kuriais siekiama priimti organizacijos valdymo sprendimus;2)intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodai, kuriais siekiama atskleisti informacijapie intelektinkapitalioriniams suinteresuotiesiems dalyviams.

Toliau straipsnyje apibendrinamos siaurosios intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodikos formavimosi vietos ir irykinamos paangios jos pltotskryptys. Prieinama prie ivados, jog pagrindinmis intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodikos klitimis reikt laikyti vertinimo konteksto ir organizacijosstrategijos vaidmens ignoravim, vertinimo metodais sprendiamos problemos ir tiksl apibrtumo stok, skirting suinteresuotj dalyvi interesderinimo principo nepaisym, perdt finansini vertinimo technik sureikminim, siek standartizuoti intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodik arsuformuoti vien apibendrint intelektinio kapitalo padt atspindint indikatori, vertinimo proceso gyvendinimo aspekt ignoravim, vertinimorezultatnaudingumo valgos stygiir palyginamjmetodikos tyrim trkum.

Siekiant ivengti iklii, intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodo pasirinkimar savito vertinimo sprendimo projektavimbtina grsti sisteminiupoiriu. Btina suprasti, jog organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas tai kryptingas daugiapakopis informacijos agregavimo ir interpretavimoprocesas, kur realizuoti tikslinga nuosekliai, t. y. nustatant intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo poreikio specifik, aikiai apibriant problemins situacijospobdatitinkanius vertinimo tikslus, vertinant poreiki ir apribojimsandroje besiformuojanias vertinimo galimybes, priklausomai nuo problemins

situacijos specifikumo, ikelt tiksl ir nustatyt vertinimo galimybi parenkant adekvaias vertinimo technikas bei aikiai apibriant vertinimoprocedras. Projektuojant intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo sprendimus, btina atskirti dvi savo ideologine prigimtimi, realizavimo pobdiu ir vertinimotechnikomis isiskirianias perspektyvas: intelektinio kapitalo vertinimvidinio organizacijos valdymo tikslais ir intelektinio kapitalo vertinim iorinioinformacijos atskleidimo tikslais.

Atsivelgiant nustatytas siaursias intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo metodikos vietas, straipsnyje pasilomas ir teorikai argumentuojamaskonceptualus organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo modelis. iame modelyje intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas formalizuojamas kaip einuoseklivertinimo etapprocesas.

1 etapas. Situacijos analiz. iame etape atskiriamos, o vliau integruojamos iorins ir vidins organizacijos aplinkos stebjimo kryptys,konstatuojama susiklosiusi padtis, vertinama pageidaujama situacija. Pokyi vektoriuje esama situacija pageidaujama situacija identifikuojamakonkreti intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo problema. Nustatytos esamos pageidautinos situacijos spragos nulemia adekvai tiksl ioms spragomssprsti formulavim.

2 etapas. Tiksl formulavimas. iame etape irykja dvi pagrindins intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo kryptys: intelektinio kapitalo vertinimasvidinio organizacijos valdymo tikslais ir intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas iorinio informacijos atskleidimo tikslais. Siekiant patenkinti abi ias kryptistaikant vien ir t patmetod, danai nra pasiekiama nei viena, nei kita. Identifikuotas pokyi vektorius esama situacija pageidaujama situacijaslygoja vertinimo tikslo parinkim, kuris savo ruotu implikuoja vertinimo metodo pasirinkim.

3 etapas. Vertinimo galimybi nustatymas. Intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo tikslai diktuoja vertinimo masto, finansavimo, laiko snaud ir kitporeiki specifik. Kita vertus ie poreikiai yra ribojami organizacijos galimybi: organizacijos dydio, personalo uimtumo, ribot finansini itekli,susikoncentravimo pagrindinse veiklos sferose laipsnio ir kt. Priklausomai nuo siekiamo tikslo, turi b ti iekoma pusiausvyros tarp intelektinio kapitalovertinimo poreiki ir apribojim tako, kuris minimaliomis laiko, finans, kt. itekli snaudomis utikrint tiksl pasiekim. Kainos - naudospusiausvyros nustatymas iame etape yra itin komplikuotas, ir danai remiasi subjektyviomis, intuityviomis organizacijos nuostatomis.

4 etapas. Vertinimo priemoni parinkimas. Atsivelgiant ankstesni etap realizavimo rezultatus, taip pat vertinus atskir vertinimo metodprana6umus ir trkumus, sprendiama apie jpritaikomumkonkreioje vadybinje situacijoje. Neatsiradus tinkamo tipinio metodo (iame koncepcijosraidos etape danai pasitaikanti situacija), tikslinga kurti ir diegti originalius organizacijos intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo sprendimus, kuri projektavimo gairs straipsnyje nubriamos rekomenduojant racionalaus vertinimo principus ir technikas.

5 etapas. Vertinimo proceso organizavimas. Vertinimo procesas tai kompleksinis reikinys, kur slygoja vidiniai ir ioriniai organizacijosveiksniai, ikelt vertinimo tiksl pobdis, pasirinktos vertinimo technikos. Nuo i dedamj priklauso, ar tai bus tstinis ar baigtinis procesas, kiektruks procesas, kiek hierarchini personalo lygi betarpikai dalyvaus procese, kokia kryptimi i viraus apai ar i apaios vir vyksprocesas. Svarbus grtamasis ryys, utikrinantis organizacinio mokymosi refleksij, inojimo ir tstinio intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo procesokokybinaugim.

6 etapas. Sprendimprimimas. Sprendim aib varijuoja nuo kompleksini strateginio valdymo sprendim iki atskirnemateriali itekli ri,organizacijos proces valdymo ar atskir suinteresuotjgrupi informacinio tenkinimo sprendim. Kuo giliau intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo procesassiskverbia organizacijos veiklos filosofij, tuo daugiau galimybiorganizacijai atveria.

Sudarant model analizuojamos dvi tikslins intelektinio kapitalo vertinimo perspektyvos: 1)intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas siekiant priimtiorganizacijos valdymo sprendimus; 2)intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas siekiant patenkinti informacinius iorini suinteresuotj dalyvi poreikius.Kiekvienam i scenarij straipsnyje pasilomi racionalaus vertinimo principai ir parenkamos vertinimo technikos. Vidinio vertinimo perspektyvojesiloma panaudoti bdingosios verts grandins projektavimo, skms veiksni identifikavimo, rodikli rinkinio formavimo ir prieastini ryitestavimo technikas. Iorinio vertinimo perspektyvoje tikslinga derinti esmini kompetencij koncepcij su imatuojam rodikli, iliustravimo-interpretavimo ir vienijanio apraymo ataskaitos formatu.

Raktaodiai: intelektinis kapitalas, intelektinio kapitalo vertinimas, vertinimo procesas, modelis.

The article has been reviewed.

Received in December, 2009; accepted in April, 2010.

imp.pdf Intcap.pdf

Documents

Transcript of imp.pdf Intcap.pdf