IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijlica/v12y2015i2p122-145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison and prioritisation of measurement methods of intellectual capital; IC-dVal, VAIC and NICI

Author

Listed:
  • Samia Aitouche
  • Nadia Kinza Mouss
  • Mohamed Djamel Mouss
  • Abdelghafour Kaanit
  • Tarek Marref

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare between three methods of intellectual capital (IC) measurement; intellectual capital dynamic valuation (IC-dVal), value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC), and national intellectual capital index (NICI). The three methods are the most used in practice; we used 24 criteria covering important aspects of IC to do general comparison. According to ten criteria, we compared and prioritised them using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The results of this comparison show that the methods are close for some criteria and distant for other criteria. The prioritisation with AHP found that NICI method is the most method responding to the criteria, namely: macro measure, guidelines of the method, dynamic valuation, involved levels of business, usability by stakeholders, covered aspects of IC, quantifiability, frequency of use and applicability. IC-dVal is the second one and VAIC is the third method responding to the criteria. The analysis could give more significant results using larger set of criteria. This is the first research prioritising methods of measurement of IC using AHP analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Samia Aitouche & Nadia Kinza Mouss & Mohamed Djamel Mouss & Abdelghafour Kaanit & Tarek Marref, 2015. "Comparison and prioritisation of measurement methods of intellectual capital; IC-dVal, VAIC and NICI," International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(2), pages 122-145.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijlica:v:12:y:2015:i:2:p:122-145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=68984
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijlica:v:12:y:2015:i:2:p:122-145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=86 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.