Comparing Experiences In Reporting Intellectual Capital In Universities
The paper focuses on the intellectual capital (IC) report in universities, a relevant theme actually for the growing interest in applying an IC approach in managing universities. The paper compares the experiences in reporting IC of two different university institutions, the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) and the Austrian Universities, to highlight pros and cons of the two different IC models employed. In order to compare these two experiences, firstly we analyzed, through a literature review, the state-of-the-art in measuring and reporting IC, then we focus on the IC measurement models used as framework by the two institution, finally we turned our attention to the IC reports issued by the two universities. Both experiences presented refer to advanced IC measurement models, but both suffer of some limits in applying the models in practice. Like all measurement and management systems that deal with knowledge-based processes, Austrian and UAM's IC reports face the methodological problems of measuring non-physical processes and outputs. In detail, Austrian IC reports lack of qualitative indicators, UAM's IC report lacks of efficiency-related and activities-related indicators.The main research limit is that the theoretical comparison has been carried out on two experiences, due to the lack of awareness of IC relevance in managing universities. The establishment of an ad hoc IC measurement model for universities could have both internal and external benefits. As regards the policy implications, Government, ranking universities by their IC, can get information about their strengths and weaknesses and using it to reallocate resources. This study contributes to broaden the research community's understanding about a relevant management (internal) and communication (external) universities' tool, the IC report, through the examination of two real life European universities experiences in disclosing intangibles. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that focuses on comparing the two best university practices in reporting IC.
Volume (Year): 1 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 004 0259 408409
Web page: http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.ro/Email:
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nory Jones & Curtis Meadow & Miguel-Angel Sicilia, 2009. "Measuring Intellectual Capital in Higher Education," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(02), pages 113-136.
- Karl-Heinz Leitner, 2004. "Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian universities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 129-140, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ora:journl:v:1:y:2011:i:2:p:618-624. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Catalin ZMOLE)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.