Human capital knowledge value added

Kannan, Gopika; Akhilesh, K. B.

doi:10.1108/14691930210424752

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Influencing these often under-utilised resources can create greater strategic awareness of capital and human resources leading to superior "added value" and competitive advantage in organisations and regions -these are important drivers in knowledge sharing cultures (Farmer and Kingsley, 2001;Kannan and Akhilesh, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognising “open innovation” in HEI‐industry interaction for knowledge transfer and exchange

Johnston

Robinson

Lockett

2010

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &Amp; Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. AbstractPurpose -This paper aims to stimulate debate among academic and policymaking communities as to understanding the importance of social processes and open innovation contexts within existing models of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) between higher education institutions (HEIs) and industry. Design/methodology/approach -This research was conducted through a number of case studies connected to UK HEIs and through extensive interviews with representatives of HEI, industry and policy makers over a two-year period. Findings -The results confirm that social processes are often under-explored in collaborative HEI-industry settings. The study identified seven emerging themes which are important to HEI-industry relationships: the importance of network intermediaries; flexibility, openness and connectivity of network structures; encouraging network participation; building trust in relationships through mutual understanding; active network learning; strengthening cooperation through capacity building; and culture change. Practical implications -This research raises implications for policymakers and practitioners engaged in developing KTE collaborative activities. The paper argues for greater attention to be placed upon the social processes that affect collaborative innovation and working. Policymaking in particular needs to take account of these processes as they are neither easy to establish nor sustain. Originality/value -The paper contributes to the literature on HEI-industry interactions for enhanced KTE activity and partnership working which demonstrates value to wider scholarly and practitioner readership. In the context of "open innovation", the paper argues in favour of greater attention to be paid to the social processes involved in engaging HEI academics with industry professionals. Moreover, the paper further contributes to wider perspectives on the importance of international HEI-industry research activities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognising “open innovation” in HEI‐industry interaction for knowledge transfer and exchange

Johnston

Robinson

Lockett

2010

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &Amp; Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, KWrs are value creators and value adders that their major role is the process, and application of knowledge and information to completing essential tasks, making decisions and solving problems (McFarlane, 2008). Their value addition refers to the extent to which they contribute to the team/organization in terms of knowledge to create products and services (Kannan and Akhilesh, 2002).…”

Section: Kwrs' Contribution To Value-addedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several articles, books and dissertations have addressed the implementation of the KVA method along with its applications and case studies. In addition, due to substantial theoretical background and practical usability of the KVA method, it is recognized as a valid measurement tool and used by many companies to assess their processes (Kannan and Akhilesh, 2002). Furthermore, there are software packages that support this method (e.g.…”

Section: Kwrs' Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

A value-based framework for the assessment of knowledge workers

Arsalan

Dahooei

Shojai

2014

VINE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to propose a new framework to assess the value of a knowledge worker (KWr) in his/her organization. Design/methodology/approach -The proposed framework determines the value of each KWr based on his/her contribution to organizational value-added. The framework includes two steps: the contribution of each work process to the total organizational value-added is determined using Knowledge Value Added method; and the value of each KWr is obtained based on the contribution of his/her operational knowledge to the value-added of the processes. Findings -This article elaborates on how KWrs' contribution to organizational value-added can be used to assess them. A new framework is designed to serve this purpose. A case study was also carried out in a marketing department of a detergent manufacturing company to test the practical usability of the framework. The statistical analysis of the results confirms the validity of the framework. Practical implications -The results of this research can be discussed in terms of two main issues. First, this study highlights the imperative role of KWrs in achieving success for organizations in today's knowledge-based economy. This research urges managers of organizations to fully recognize and measure the importance and value of KWrs and recommends that the mechanisms of human resource management (such as compensation and rewarding systems, hiring process and training and development) can be modified with respect to this value measurement. Second, an applicable framework with specific and clearly defined steps is introduced in this paper, which can be used by organizations to determine the value of KWrs based on their contribution to organizational value-added. The proposed framework has two important characteristics which previous models and frameworks failed to deliver: this new framework contains detailed items and procedures that could be easily obtained and fully understood by practitioners and researchers; and the proposed framework provides the ability to compare all types of KWrs. The results obtained by implementation of this framework give insight into the appropriate managerial approaches to reach personal and organizational goals simultaneously. Originality/value -Due to the differences between knowledge work (KW) and manual work, the management of KWrs requires its own methods and techniques. In this article, a brand new framework for KWrs' value assessment is developed based on the characteristics of KW.

show abstract

“…Hence we focus on drawbacks of specific measurement techniques in this section. We will present a detailed analysis of goal‐question‐metrics paradigm (GQM) (Basili and Perricone, 1984, Basili and Musa, 1991, Basili et al 1994; Bhatt, 2000), the intangibles assets monitor (Sveiby, 1996, 1998; Bontis, 2001), Skandia framework (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Sveiby, 1998; Bontis, 2001), Bagelleri's R&D measures, (Bagelieri, 1997, 2000), knowledge capital value (Lev, 2000; Stewart, 2001), human capital value added (Kannan and Akhilesh, 2002), carnegie measures of knowledge architecture and performance (Carley et al , 2000), economic value added (Bontis, 1999; Starssman, 1999; Sveiby, 2001,West, 1999), organizational culture (Argyris, 1982; DeLong, 1997; Denison, 1982, Schein, 1996), return on investment, (Phillips, 1997), knowledge value potential (Iske and Boekhoff, 2001), knowledge production function (Machlup, 1962; Swanstrom, 2001), and learning and diffusion curves (Lam, 2000; Roth, 1995; Swanstrom, 2001; Watkins, 2001).…”

Section: Survey Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Intellectual capital: Measurement effectiveness

Kannan

Aulbur

2004

Journal of Intellectual Capital

Self Cite

192

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intellectual capital (IC), knowledge management and intangible assets are important factors in determining the value of an organization, as reflected in the growth of the knowledge management industry. There is however, a lack of effective measurement techniques to specify and optimize the value of IC. This paper presents a detailed review of existing techniques and establish the need for a more comprehensive approach. The proposed framework addresses IC valuation issues across the IC cycle. People, process, and technology are measured and correlated in the final step with social and financial measures, thus providing a new framework.

show abstract

Human capital knowledge value added

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

Recognising “open innovation” in HEI‐industry interaction for knowledge transfer and exchange

Recognising “open innovation” in HEI‐industry interaction for knowledge transfer and exchange

A value-based framework for the assessment of knowledge workers

Intellectual capital: Measurement effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About