Intellectual capital management : a critical analysis of conceptual approaches and tools

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: It is generally acknowledged that the new millennium is likely to witness a broad basedtendency towards being knowledge driven. One manifestation seems particularly important,viz. the realisation that the proactive management of the important organisational resource ofintellectual capital (IC) increasingly influences corporate performance. In order for companiesto remain competitive in future, it appears essential that an appropriate understanding of theconcept of intellectual capital management (ICM) be developed. In view of theseobservations, there is a need for a critical analysis of extant conceptual approaches and toolsto ICM. The objective of the present study was to contribute to an improved understanding ofthe concept of ICM. To achieve this objective it was considered fundamental to first establishconceptual clarity concerning the resource to be managed through ICM, viz. IC. In a secondstep, an important task for the achievement of the objective was a critical analysis of extantICM approaches and tools, to investigate their rationale, origin, and, purpose, as well as toestablish advantages and disadvantages inherent in their operationalisation.Scrutiny of the literature revealed that conceptual vagueness and obscurity surround the termIC, and that no clear consensus has yet been established concerning its anatomy. In spite ofthe divergent views on the definition and the generic properties of IC a preliminary definitionof IC could be established by way of a comparative analysis. It was further demonstrated thatthe anatomy of intellectual capital can be synthesised into a categorisation scheme involvingthree distinct building blocks, viz. internal capital, human capital and external capital.Three ICM approaches and tools were eclectically chosen and critically analysed: i) Sveiby'sIntangible Asset Monitor, ii) Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard, and iii)Edvinnson's Skandia IC Navigator. These were selected because they were considered toencapsulate pioneering efforts and thus represent the status quo on ICM. Analysis suggestedthat the three models differ in scope and purpose, i.e. different approaches exist as to whetherintellectual capital should be managed in isolation or in conjunction with financial capital, andas to whether they should be used for internal measurement purposes or external reporting.Moreover, extant ICM approaches and tools appear to be static in that they account primarilyfor stocks of intellectual capital, rather than for flows between the individual IC categories. The salient conclusion of the study was that extant ICM tools are primarily concerned withthe measurement of intangible corporate assets and not with their management per se.Based on the conclusions of the study a number of recommendations were forwarded, both interms of a better understanding of the concept of ICM as well as suggestions for theadvancement of business applications and theory. The propositions made range from avalidation of the three components of IC discerned in the study to a development of specificmanagement directives for ICM.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University