Intellectual capital – defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets

Abstract

Measuring intellectual capital is on the agenda of most 21st century organisations. This paper takes a knowledge-based view of the firm and discusses the importance of measuring organizational knowledge assets. Knowledge assets underpin capabilities and core competencies of any organisation. Therefore, they play a key strategic role and need to be measured. This paper reviews the existing approaches for measuring knowledge based assets and then introduces the knowledge asset map which integrates existing approaches in order to achieve comprehensiveness. The paper then introduces the knowledge asset dashboard to clarify the important actor/infrastructure relationship, which elucidates the dynamic nature of these assets. Finally, the paper suggests to visualise the value pathways of knowledge assets before designing strategic key performance indicators which can then be used to test the assumed causal relationships. This will enable organisations to manage and report these key value drivers in today's economy.

Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review

“…Some models then attempt a final IC valuation in monetary terms or propose a correlation between the computed value of IC and that of the company. An extensive literature review found the widely cited frameworks summarised in Table 3 to be the 'key' models in this area (Marr et al, 2004). Cited more than 3,000 times, the Skandia Navigator is the most prominent attempt to measure IC.…”

“…Roos et al (1998) followed this initiative with their IC Index, which attempted to offer a more generic and flexible framework that would overcome some of the Navigator's drawbacks. The IC Rating (Jacobsen et al, 2005), Knowledge Assets Map (Marr et al, 2004), Intangible Assets Monitor (Sveiby, 1997), and its subsequent Modified Intangible Assets Monitor (Petty and Guthrie, 2000)frameworks limit their scope to internal reporting to allow top management to assess the status of a company's IC and assist in decision making. They do not target external presentation of the company's IC and thus only implement the first two processes (Classification and metric development).…”

Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities on the Relationship between Intellectual Capital and Performance: A Hierarchical Component Model Perspective in PLS-SEM Path Modeling

“…J. Business Manage., 9 (3): 443-456, 2015 technological innovations, as well as rapid changes in economic and political structures, firms need to develop and define clear strategies that will give rise to capabilities, competences and sustained competitive advantage (Marr et al, 2004). Tseng and Lee (2014) argued that the firm's ability to effectively apply its knowledge resources to develop an idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities that can quickly response to the environmental changes has become an urgent need due to the incapability of the current conventional strategic management model to deal with various questions about organizational management.…”

Introducing the Intellectual Capital Interplay Model: Advancing Knowledge Frameworks in the Not-for-Profit Environment of Higher Education

“…To face these challenges, higher education institutions must purposefully examine the processes of creating, managing and leveraging their knowledge. Since knowledge assets underpin core competencies of any organization -particularly higher education institutions -they play a key strategic role and need to be considered and measured (Marr, Schiuma, & Neely, 2004). Researchers have declared the need for a more focused effort to manage knowledge in the not-for-profit sectors (Bezhani, 2010;Bryson, 2004;Frappaolo, 2006;Grummer, 2000;Kelman, 2005;Secundo, Margherita, Elia & Passiante, 2010;Shoham & Perry, 2009.…”