Suchergebnisse

The intellectual capital (IC) community has entered a phase of consolidation. This article contributes to this consolidation process by clarifying existing motives (why) and proposed methods (how) for valuing or measuring IC. In general, the field of IC performance measurement has paid little attention to organizational diagnosis and the "why" question. It is often unclear what the organizational problem is the methods intent to solve. Many methods for the valuation or measurement of Intellectual Capital can be characterized as "solutions in search of a cause". Another area that requires clarification is the "how" question. There seems to be confusion about the distinction between valuation and measurement. The distinction is fundamental yet not recognized in the field. Based on a literature review this article presents a classification of motives and solutions and plots ten existing methods in a "why" by "how" matrix.

Standard Intellectual Capital theory contains some key assumptions or practices that limit our view on the weightless wealth of companies. Discusses four of those practices: first, the tendency to limit the discussion about the weightless wealth of companies to intellectual means of production. Second, the use of classification schemas that break down the total capital of a company into its contributing parts. Third, the tendency to treat intangibles the same way we treat tangible assets, by trying to force them into the double‐entry bookkeeping system. Finally, the lack of suitable yardsticks that enable the user to judge whether measurements should be seen as too high or too low. For each of these practices an alternative is provided, based on a practical and fully tested methodology. Shows that it is still possible to enrich existing Intellectual Capital theory and make it more applicable in practice.

In many fields within management and organizational literature there is considerable debate and controversy about key theoretical concepts and their definitions and meanings. Systematic metaphor analysis can be a useful approach to study the underlying conceptualizations that give rise to these controversies and putting them in perspective. It can help identify the different ways a theoretical concept is structured and given meaning, provide insight into the way these different conceptualizations relate to each other, and show how these conceptualizations impact further theorization about the concept. This article describes the procedure for a systematic analysis of the metaphors used to conceptualize key theoretical concepts. To examine its usefulness, the authors apply the approach to the field of social capital, and in particular to the concept of 'relationships' in organizations. In the metaphor analysis of three seminal articles on social capital, the authors identify seven metaphoric concepts for relationships. The metaphors are illuminated as important for providing imagery that adds specific meaning in the process of authors theorizing about social capital like 'tie', 'path' and 'bridge'. They add dynamics and controllability to the concepts by attributing an array of verbs like 'to move between' or 'to use' relationships. In addition, the metaphors allow for the attribution of specific characteristics to the concept of relationships that can be used as variables in theory construction, such as the strength of a relationship or the 'distance' between people. These insights are useful in exploring and reconciling differences in social capital definitions.

PurposeTo analyse common metaphors used in the intellectual capital (IC) and knowledge management literatures to conceptualise knowledge, in order to study the nature of the intellectual capital concept.Design/methodology/approachA textual analysis methodology is used to analyse texts fromThe Knowledge‐Creating Companyby Nonaka and Takeuchi,Working Knowledgeby Davenport and Prusak and "Brainpower" by Stewart, in order to identify underlying metaphors.FindingsOver 95 per cent of the statements about knowledge identified are based on some kind of metaphor. The two dominant metaphors that form the basis for the concept of intellectual capital are "knowledge as a resource" and "knowledge as capital".Research limitations/implicationsMetaphors highlight certain characteristics and ignore others, so the IC community should ask itself what characteristics of knowledge the "knowledge as a resource" and "knowledge as capital" metaphors ignore.Practical implicationsKnowledge has no referent in the real world and requires metaphor to be defined, conceptualised, and acted upon. When using such metaphors we should become aware of their limitations as they steer us in certain directions and this may happen unconsciously. The paper concludes by asking whether we need new metaphors to better understand the mechanisms of the knowledge economy, hence allowing us to potentially change some of the more negative structural features of contemporary society.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to highlight that intellectual capital is a metaphor and that the metaphorical nature of the concept has far reaching consequences.