It is generally argued that intellectualcapital is likely to be the key source of sustainable competitive advantage for SMEs; a developed stock of intellectualcapital enhances the ability of SMEs to apply existing and generate further knowledge for advancing and commercialising innovative technology (European Commission, 2006; Huggins & Weir, 2012). Intellectualcapitalmanagement should therefore be regarded as an on-going and dynamic process, which constantly matches market demand. Considering the tacitness and spatial stickiness of managerial know-how, close proximity is necessary for knowledge flow between actors. Science parks by their very nature provide opportunities for local knowledge dissemination, and the networking opportunities they offer become critical sources for the development of shared ‘know-how’ and effective practice sharing between onsite SMEs. Therefore, science parks may promote co-specialisation between SMEs and other tenants, and consequently may also enhance the opportunities for improving intel- lectual capitalmanagement capabilities. In this way, science parks can be regarded as ‘networks of opportunities’, stimulating interconnected- ness and co-evolution by facilitating the diffusion of knowledge, inno- vation and management practices.
Intellectualcapital has emerged as an indispensable element for enhancing productivity and sustaining performance of organizations in this knowledge-based economy. In the healthcare industry, intellectualcapital forms the basis for continuing innovation and subsequent performance. Hence, the management of hospitals needs sound intellectualcapitalmanagement in order to ensure sustainability. Moreover, the activities of hospitals generally depend more on intangible resources such as clinical skills, knowledge, expertise, experiences, competencies, doctor-patient relation, doctors’ and hospital’s reputation rather than physical resources like physical assets. For this study, Malaysian private hospitals were selected as sample to investigate how hospitals extract the value of their intangible capital. This study aims at providing empirical evidence on the intellectualcapitalmanagement practices in Malaysian private hospitals. Data was collected from a series of interviews with representatives from five private hospitals in Malaysia. Cross-case study analysis was carried out in analysing the data collected to develop patterns found in the evidence. The study reveals that the intellectualcapitalmanagement in hospital industry is quite unique especially in the human capitalmanagement and the relational capitalmanagement. For human capitalmanagement, clinical staffs’ competencies are crucial. Interestingly, the study found that physicians are often not the direct employees of the hospitals. This leads to a unique relationship between the hospital and the physicians. Meanwhile for the relational capitalmanagement, this study also reveals that the unique relationship that exists between the physicians and patients leads to the structural capital of the hospitals which may influence the hospitals’ reputations and good names.
If there is a gap between the stakeholder values identified in the first step and the intellectualcapital weightings established in the fourth step, then you have started on a basic ‘gap analysis’. For example, if ‘relationship with regulators’ was an important area, but your company has not identified a single point of responsibility for that area, then there will a gap that needs to be addressed.
still perform a management arrangement, still recognizes and tries to use its limited resources. Because of the limited resources both for HC, SC, and RC, pharmaceutical companies must be able to utilize it’s owned to be empowered on its role in supporting the company's operations and performance. The way to do is to knowledge management process. In the process of managing this knowledge, pharmaceutical companies must be able to recognize and utilize the explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge of the company and employees. Explicit knowledge related to visible-knowledge, such knowledge is written, archived and spread in a book or other printed form. Tacit knowledge associated with invisible knowledge, such knowledge in the form of know-how, experience, skills, understanding that employees. In this process of knowledge management, small-scale level pharmaceutical company or below can utilize the explicit knowledge for various purposes, e.g. for the development of employee skills, to improve processes and procedures, as well as materials do networking with other parties. Pharmaceutical companies can also take advantage of tacit knowledge of employees which have to be converted into explicit knowledge. The experience and skills of employees in the form of tacit knowledge can be transformed into explicit knowledge, such as various kinds of rules, operating system procedures, or modules also work to improve the performance of the employee and the company.
the balanced scorecard framework (Kaplan, norton 1996) in such a way that the models focus on the various aspects of intellectualcapitalmanagement. The models give a broad picture of the various intel- lectual capital components which are related to each other, but which are not combined into a bottom line figure. The models do not try to incorporate the information on intellectualcapital in the traditional accounting framework. Third, the intellectual capi- tal components are measured in different ways. All kinds of measures are used: non-financial, financial, qualitative and quantitative measures and descrip- tions of activities and processes.
The VAIC™ coefficient consists of all of the factors listed in the above chart. Therefore, to increase the effectiveness of using the intellectualcapital, the Group Dom Development S.A. should improve the indicators at the same time. To achieve this, the Group should follow the advice and instructions given in earlier sections analyzing these indicators. In the case of the Group Dom Development S.A. it is important to improve the value added that affects a large extent on all indicators. As results according to the study, in the real estate sector the biggest impact on the effectiveness of using the resource of intellectualcapital is the human factor. Finally, it can be stated that in real estate companies creating the value-added of intellectualcapital should be held by the skillful use of human capital. This observation confirms that human capital is an essential component of the conditions of Polish intellectualcapital firms, including traditional sectors, including real estate development. Increasing the effectiveness of its use will contribute to improving the efficiency of the company.
Jardon and Martos (2012) conducted an empirical re search and revealed the main elements of structural and relational capital. According to them, structural capital can be evaluated through market knowledge, teamwork, internal communication, corporate culture, processes and product technologies. In addition, relational capital can be measured using variables, such as the attitude toward cooperation and partnerships of the company, distribu tion network, corporate image, type of distribution chan nels, the direct relationship with end customers, type of customers and types of providers. The results revealed that structural capital increases relational capital and this can be explained by a learning process, which is essential in order to compete within modern markets. The need to adapt to changes within markets leads to implementing technologies, which can help to enter new markets. As a result, strong communication skills are needed to impro ve relationships with clients, suppliers, service providers, governmental institutions and financial organisations. According to Jardon and Martos (2012), “intellectualcapital of people (human capital) creates structural capital (intellectualcapital within an organisation) and structural capital creates relational capital (intellectualcapital with the environment)”.
Today, Experts believe that the organizations’ performance is not only evaluated by financial issues. They believe that there are other factors affecting on the financial and non-financial performance of the organizations. Researchers (including economists, accountant and organization s managers) believe that the performance of each organization is the total reflection of its intellectualcapital (human capital, structural capital and customer capital). In fact, the improvement of each factor demonstrates the financial and non-financial performance of the organization. Therefore the first hypothesis is as follow: the desired condition of intellectual capitals cause to improve the effectiveness, the market place, customer satisfaction, competence and suitable operation of the organization. In this survey, data analysis was based on the descriptive and comprehensive methods and SPSS software and multiple regressions were used in order to test the hypotheses. The population included all managers and assistants of Tehran’s Sepah banks. In this regard, some procedures were presented in order to use intellectualcapital and to improve it efficiently.
It emerged that majority of the IC measurement methods were created during the last decade and the development of these methods was influenced by the IC theory mostly. Despite the variety of definitions and descriptions used, the most popular concept among the methods is “IntellectualCapital”. Nearly half of the methods are designed in the outcome-reason direction. The rest are based on the analysis of the reasons for present IC performance as well as the forecast of its future performance. From the coverage point of view IC within the methods is mostly treated as an entity of undisclosed organizational potential that influence business performance. An obvious interdependence between the derivation paradigm of the methods and their positioning on a time scale has been revealed. Methods developed within the finance theory are mostly based on retrospective information, while the IC theory methods are oriented towards the measurement of organizational potential far more. Methods developed within the finance theory involve monetary measures. Measurement results of these methods are based on a single indicator mostly. While the IC theory methods are distinguished for the variety of measures used and their measurement results are presented as a single indicator the same as a set of indicators. An obvious interrelationship between the problem solved within the methods and benchmarks used exists. Benchmarks are more common within the internal measurement methods. While competitive comparability is more relevant within the external reporting. Investigation of the measurement approach applied reveals that the state measurement and the flow measurement are equally important. Many methods during the research were rejected because of various restrictions related to particular circumstances of implementation, such as total reliance on the type of industry or special business environment. Just a few methods are common within business practice. Others are not clearly reasoned, lack functional and technical clarity and are solely based on theoretical assumptions.
1. Management Accounting Information System (MAIS) Managers use the MAIS to find more specific information which helps them to strengthen information on strategic issues from informal sources (Åhlström & Karlsson, 1996; Heidmann et al., 2008), can also be used to give the company a competitive advantage (McLeod & Schnell, 2009). MAIS should be integrated to retrieve information easily (Wilkinson, 1989). Management accounting system according to Chenhall (2003) provided only internal, historical, and financial information. There has to be improvement on the system to get a broader scope of information, covering more on non- financial information. In digital age, organizations inevitably comply with the current technology in their accounting system for generating qualified information. (Boiney 2000; Chandra 2001; Sutton 2000). The monitoring, measurement, and assessment activities are the priorities of the organizations in the digital information system so as to deliver products and services (Bhimani, 2003). MAIS is reliable when information provided can satisfy its users with accuracy, timeliness, and relevance (Fleischman et al., 2010), good financial information as well as information on non-financial (Weisenfeld & Killough, 2001). Moreover, Stair & Reynolds (2010) put efficiency while Wixom & Todd (2005) consider reliability, integration and flexibility as key feature in the information quality. All in all, quality information promotes efficiency in the business process thus improves productivity and job satisfaction (Laudon & Laudon, 2012). On contrary, dissatisfied information will increase doubts among users on it. Even users ponder to abandon it since it may cause disturbance in decision making process. (Ribiere et al., 1999). Therefore, managers should put great attention since the early stage of designing information system to avoid any discontented information (Kendal & Kendal, 2011). Laudon & Laudon (2012) states that generally information system consists of 5 (five) variables: scope, time, cost, quality and risk.
Intellectualcapital (IC) is commonly defined as the sum of an organisation’s resources encompassing knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience and any intellectual resource that can contribute to value creation for the organisation (Bontis, 2002; Stewart, 1997; Sullivan, 1998). As physical assets and financial capital are no longer the resources that facilitate competitive advantage, IC becomes the only differentiating factor that provides a competitive market position to an organisation (Teece, 2002). Following the work of a number of scholars in the field of IC, it is generally accepted that the concept of IC encompasses three primary interrelated components: human capital (HC), structural capital (SC) and relational capital (RC) (Bontis, 1996; 1998; Dzinkowski, 2000; Saint-Onge, 1996; Stewart, 1997; Sveiby, 1997).
Another exemple is Union Fenosa, a big company specializing on energy production and distribution, declares as one of its corporate goals “to be a leader in managing the intellectualcapital” (Union Fenosa, annual report 2000, p.35). The company attributes a key role in the process of corporate value creation to the IC. Union Fenosa formalised its IC model in 1999 and starting from this year the annual reports incorporate a synthesis of the relevant IC indicators. In the year 2001 Union Fenosa developed specific IC models for its different divisions. The company reports a wide range of the indicators within each of blocks of its IC model, the structural, relational and human capital parts. For this purpose company translate into numbers their core intangible values. For instance, at the first glance purely discursive concept of “shared corporate values”, is proxied with “the number of people given specific training in corporate values” and “the percentage of behaviours aligned with corporate values”. During the analysed period the collection of the indicators reported by Union Fenosa goes through the enrichment and refinement. While in the year 2000 the company reported 46 IC numeric indicators, the respective figures for 2001 and 2002 are 53 and 63. In addition, for each of the analysed years, the company provides qualitative information about the projects and initiatives, developed in order to support and sustain the IC growth.
NPOs pursue their mission to meet social needs, no matter how broadly or narrowly that mission might be interpreted (Liebschutz, 1992). However, NPOs are commonly operating in a highly competitive environment today that is characterised by increasing demand of services from the community, growing competition for contracts with the public and for-profit sector (Ramia and Carney, 2003), declining volunteer support (Lyons, 2001) and a generally tighter government funding source (Craig et al., 2004). The competitive environment has forced NPOs to adapt for-profit strategy concepts. This concepts are often criticised for being ineffective in NPOs (Alexander, 2000; Chetkovich and Frumkin, 2003; Mulhare, 1999) as the primary objectives of NPOs is investing in people rather than profit (Herman and Renz, 1999; Ryan, 1999). As a result, NPOs have not been able to make use of the strategy concepts in order to take advantage of the knowledge economy and increase their effectiveness in serving their stakeholders. The need for competent strategic management concepts that are able to fit in the unique non-profit environments has become widely accepted (Courtney, 2002; Salamon et al., 1999; Stone et al., 1999).
The increasing number and sophistication of para- digms make greater intellectual demands upon managers where they need to be understood rather than ignored. This accelerating change in thinking is fuelled by the transformation of technology, markets, products and processes. If these new ideas are accepted, they gradually become reality and practice of management. At the same time, new ideas could become a core focus of the organi- zation motivating and recruiting its employees for a better performance not because for the idea itself but for the belief into something new. As concluded by Benson (1977), Astley and Van de Ven (1983) “by giving ac- counts of organizational phenomena, theory helps to give objectivity to the practices to which it refers”. Further- more, Ritzer (1980) rightly suggests that “multiple para- digm sciences like organization theory fulfill essentially political functions, as the proponents of each paradigm are engaged in political efforts to gain dominance within the discipline as a means of imposing their own concep- tions of reality on the practical events of social life”.
In order to quantify the level of information on intellectualcapital, an unweighted disclosure index has been developed (Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007, Tejedo-Romero, 2016). Using the methodology of content analysis, qualitative and quantitative information has been codified into previously defined categories (Krippendorff, 1997). The selection of these categories and the items that comprise each category have been based on previous literature (Brooking, 1997; Sveiby, 1997, etc.), guidelines and recommendations of many institutions (Comisión Europea, 2006; DATI, 2000; Meritum Project, 2002; NORDIKA, 2001; Ordoñez de Pablos, 2004) and empirical studies on IC disclosure in different countries (An et al., 2015; Bozzolan et al., 2003; Goebel, 2015; Guthrie & Petty, 2000; Yi & Davey, 2010, etc.) and in Spain (Alcaniz et al., 2015; García-Meca et al., 2005; Macagnan, 2009; Oliveras et al., 2008; Tejedo-Romero & Alfaro- Cortés, 2014).
Within an African context, the results reveal that there are still many executive business managers who do not take intellectualcapital as the main source of profitability for their companies. However, the above univariate analysis of the six study statements generally supports the Ubale Framework and that managers in Africa recognise intellectualcapital as one of the strategic pillars for organisational productivity and sustainability. The above statistical results of the research findings are summarised in Table 1, below. Further, the means (averages) on response ratings on each statement are diagrammatically presented in Figure 2, below.
measures and its financially based instruments. Guthrie et al (2003) divide the perspectives of intellectualcapital into three branches: accounting, management control and management. The accounting perspective focuses on specific indicators of intangibles (e.g. research and development expenses, training costs, goodwill, advertising, patents, brands, customer satisfaction, etc) for the purpose of their capitalisation. The management control perspective emphasises how these indicators can be used for management control purposes whilst the management perspective calls forth a new managing approach where intangibles are in the limelight. What is common amongst these perspectives is the new belief that intellectualcapital is the key driver of sustainable organisational performance and that it better reflects the actual worth of an organisation. This is shifting the focus of management from the tangibles to the intangibles under the auspices of the old doctrine of “what gets measured gets managed”. Such an approach, however, makes intellectualcapital meaningless and devalues its nature which is intangible. The key consideration is that it is impossible, and undesirable, to reduce intellectualcapital to a calculable number that establishes whether an organisation’s intellectualcapital has increased or diminished. This is because measurement schemes are jumbles of subjective evaluations and opinions presented as objective phenomena which can serve to mask what really matters. Measurement thus transforms data into biased organisational conversations about what is valuable. It is simply a soft method of intervention, a less visible tool of organisational re-direction and altered meanings; it is not an explanation (Mouritsen 2004).
Such transformation of a university as a public institution, in our opinion, can have both positive consequences, above all for the universities themselves, in terms of enhancing their market-oriented scientific activities, and consequently, greater financial autonomy, as well as repercussions, since excessive commercialization will cause defamation of fundamental research requiring long-term investments with unobvious business results. At the same time, fundamental science not only generates fundamentally new knowledge, which becomes the basis of breakthrough innovations, but also ensures the proper quality of perspective-oriented university education. In this context, it is indicative that in the United States, the state remains financial support for basic research, while focusing business on applied research and technological development. In the EU, the European Research Council has been established for carrying out priority funding of basic sciences. The share of state funding of basic research in South Korea, Malaysia, South America, and Russia is constantly growing. In countries with insufficient funding, the basic sciences can expect the decline of many scientific schools, intellectual outflow to other, more profitable fields of activity and abroad. In general, destructives of a systemic nature in the direction of intellectual degradation of society and technological regress also become possible.
In the current century, people will tend to do more brainwork,and the tendency of physical activities will reduce. The process of economic growth will be more driven by knowledge and information rather than the production process. The knowledge and information referred to intellectualcapital never appears on financial reports but have a significant impact on firms’ performance as compare to physical assets (Akpinar & Akdemir, 1999). The globalization phenomenon has increased the interaction of individuals for their common benefits and the quest for better living standards (Hassan, Abbas, & Zainab, 2018). Sharia screening process in a country like Pakistan having similarities and differences with other counties (Waris, Hassan, Abbas, Mohsin, & Waqar, 2018).Financial Deficit has widened the importance of equity capital raising(Asif, Abbas, & Hassan, 2018) .In the current scenario, intangible resources,knowledge-based economies,and various competencies have become crucial elements in the growth