Rethinking the liaisons between Intellectual Capital Management and Knowledge Management

Abstract

Intellectual Capital Management (ICM) and Knowledge Management (KM), two highly popular topics in current management discussions, are often bracketed together. The common understanding of ICM is that concepts of measurement, reporting and valuation most distinctively define this perspective, whereas KM connects debates about organizational knowledge with possibilities and limitations of management. That raises the question of how the management focus on knowledge in KM discussions is connected to the valuation and measurement approaches of ICM. An extensive review of the literature shows that knowledge plays a background role in Intellectual Capital (IC) measurement discussions. Referral to knowledge as an intangible asset appears more rhetorical than based on in-depth understanding of what knowledge as an organizational resource or capability is or is not. More particularly, the predominant view of knowledge in IC measurement discussions is a neo-functionalist, possession approach, even if flow elements of knowledge are used to supplement stock elements. Critical understanding of knowledge, for instance, as practice-based dispute, are virtually absent from the ICM discussions. What the blind spots identified in the review highlight is that ICM and KM discussions, which are presently mostly developed in isolation, should set up more meaningful and elaborated liaisons than are currently established. Two important areas for building such liaisons include (1) the perusal of the contextual, possibly disputed and power-related nature of knowledge in relation to measurement and (2) developing a systematic approach to understanding what measuring or not measuring does to organizational knowledge.

Intellectual Capital Management in Public Universities?

“…Market approach is of great importance in transferring basic research into applied research, and then into development works, and finally during their implementation. Hendriks and Sousa (2012) stress that the intellectual capital is not only a sum of organisation members' knowledge but also, perhaps first of all, a knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer from university stakeholders produces real intellectual capital value and competitive advantage.…”

Measuring Knowledge

“…Human capital (or employee competence) is defined as the knowledge, competencies and mindsets of individuals and teams (Hendriks & Sousa, 2013). According to Luthy (1998), human capital consists of the abilities, knowledge and skills of employees and is an important source of an organization's innovation (Bontis, 1999).…”

“…To gain and use human capital a company has to enter into a contract with the owners of such capital and furthermore it should provide suitable conditions for its development, because outdated human capital loses its value. Structural capital (or organizational capital, internal structure) refers to knowledge embedded in organizational infrastructures such as routines, databases, rules, procedures, values and norms (Hendriks & Sousa, 2013). In contrast, structural capital is, according to Kannan and Aulbur (2004), represented by supportive infrastructure such as information systems or organizational processes which a company provides for its employees.…”

“…In contrast, structural capital is, according to Kannan and Aulbur (2004), represented by supportive infrastructure such as information systems or organizational processes which a company provides for its employees. Finally, relational capital (or customer capital, relationship capital, external structure) concerns knowledge embedded in customer relationships, market channels, intra-organizational relationships and technological networking embedded in the organizational external relationships (Roos 1997 as cited in Hendriks & Sousa, 2013). In other words, it refers to the combined value of an organization's external relationships with stakeholders, such as suppliers and customers, who are valuable sources of both revenue and market knowledge for the organization (Ragab & Arisha, 2013).…”

Simulation of Knowledge Transfer Based on Complex Network

“…In the past few years, researchersand managers have a growing interest in knowledge management, so that the research of knowledge flow and transfer is popular in the field of knowledge management, organizational learning and innovation [1][2][3].On another front of research, the theory of complex networks provides a useful tool for investigating the dynamics of various kinds of networks [4][5][6][7], including computer networks [8], social networks [9] and many others. Some works have addressed the development of knowledge using complex networks as a tool [10][11], and concluded that the structure of complex network has high effect on knowledge transfer process.Moreover, the characters of agents,such as absorptive ability, knowledge rigidity and so on, can affect knowledge diffusion process too.…”