PurposeThe growing interest regarding intangibles and intellectual capital (IC) has extended from firms to public institutions such as universities and research centres during the last decade. Since universities are considered critical institutional actors in national innovation systems, European higher education and research institutions are going through an important transformation process with the aim of making them more comparable, flexible, transparent and competitive. The objective of the paper is two‐fold. On the one hand, its aim is to address the importance of measuring and managing IC in universities to improve research management and contribute to comparative analysis in European universities, and on the other hand, to highlight some methodological and conceptual considerations in relation to the analytical framework developed within an ongoing experience – the Observatory of European Universities (OEU).Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses a specific case within the OEU: the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) in Spain. The problems and difficulties within the process of applying the OEU analytical framework are examined.FindingsThis analysis provides some insight into the utility of the framework. From a conceptual point of view, we find some similarities between IC approaches and the OEU, but a different terminology is identified.Originality/valueThis paper argues that important benefits can be achieved when adapting the Observatory's framework to the IC approach and terminology, regarding the increasing impact of IC approaches at firm and political level.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on national intellectual capital (NIC) in order to identify and compare the main models to measure and report IC at the country level and to examine the differences from and similarities to the IC approach for firms. Design/methodology/approach -A systematic literature review was carried out using three scientific databases and the five most important journals. Additional information was also reviewed. The search covered the period from January 2000 to December 2012. The models to measure intangibles were analyzed and compared using qualitative and quantitative techniques. Findings -The literature review shows that although such literature is still nascent and relatively scarce, there is growing interest in measuring, reporting, and managing IC for countries as a whole. NIC studies have been published in a small number of journals and more theoretical work is required. There are two main types of methods to assess and report on NIC. Despite the differences among models, their findings tend to converge. Practical implications -The information obtained contributes to the selection of models. This selection can be based on pragmatic considerations, such as the availability of data. Originality/value -There are several models to evaluate intangibles at the country level and different ways to measure them. The paper offers comparative information about the models to aid in selection for managing intangibles at the country level.
Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the mechanisms used to measure and manage intangibles in companies can be applied to universities and other research institutions. Design/methodology/approach-The characteristics of the issues is addressed by companies in relation to their intellectual capital (IC) and how they manage them are reviewed to discuss whether universities can apply the same framework. External pressures for change and barriers universities encounter, particularly due to the current governance system, are discussed. The experience of some universities are briefly described. Findings-The companies' framework is possible to be used by universities, with some specificity. Research limitations/implications-The number of universities actually applying this framework is small and therefore the results cannot be generalized. Practical implications-Policy measures are needed to encourage research institutions and universities to measure and manage their IC. In a knowledge-based society, the main knowledge producers should be more accountable for their activities. Originality/value-The use of IC concepts to analyze universities' performance is still scarce. This is an attempt to fill such lacuna.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse the increasing attention to universities and research organizations at political level and the growing implementation in these institutions of intellectual capital (IC) management and reporting mechanisms, traditionally used by private companies. The objective of the paper is twofold. On one hand, to present an IC report specially designed for universities, suggesting a battery of indicators for resources related to research activity, and, on the other hand, to move one step forward and discuss current challenges in relation to establishing standards for universities to manage and report on their IC and the difficulties in capturing the process dynamics.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews recent literature both on conceptual issues and experiences in relation to IC. The Austrian IC report, the observatory of European university exercise and some recent experiences of the Madrid regional government concerning Madrid universities are analysed. Both theory and practice contribute to the development of an IC reporting and management model for universities.FindingsA model for reporting and managing IC resources in universities and research organisations is suggested. IC dynamics are discussed and current shortcomings of IC analysis presented. The latter points may define the research agenda in the field.Originality/valueAvailable experiences are used to discuss possibilities and difficulties in showing the dynamics of higher education institutions by means of an IC report.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.