Search results

This study seeks to provide a broad ranging review that identifies, summarises and integrates the different multi-level approaches contributing to advances in research on measuring IC. This furthermore sets out and highlights an agenda for future research.

Deploying a systematic and thorough review of the literature, the authors were able to identify 60 articles and identify the main theories applied and the respective methodological orientations of these articles across three levels of analysis: micro, meso and macro.

The study's findings suggest that the literature on measuring IC has approached the theme across three different levels –micro, meso and macro. In addition, the results enable the identification of seven dimensions to IC: competitive advantage, economic value generated, resources and capacities, corporate governance, IC components, innovation management and the dissemination of IC.

The mixed-methods approach, which combines a traditional systematic literature review with ontological thematic analysis, casts light on the core aspects that led to the identification of a new approach in the academic literature on measuring IC.

This study puts forward a holistic model with measurements for IC across the three levels of analysis as well as the respective criteria for choosing the variables.

This study represents a first attempt to analyse the emerging literature on IC measurement through a multi-level approach; integrating and extracting the potential theoretical contributions in this field of knowledge; proposing an integrated model as well as a theoretically relevant and innovative research agenda that opens up paths to future research projects.

Despite the large number of academic publications in human capital, there are few instruments to measure it. The purpose of this paper is to develop a holistic scale to measure human capital, considering aspects related to competence, attitudes, skills, leadership, and organizational memory.

First, a literature review of the existing measurement models was carried out. Second, based on the results the authors developed a scale and a questionnaire that were applied in a financial institution in Santa Catarina, Brazil, supported by a factor analysis and a reliability analysis.

As a result of this study a scale consisting of 13 variables of human capital emerged that have been grouped into three factors – leadership and motivation; qualifications; and satisfaction and creativity – which can assist in the organization’s human capital measurement. From a theoretical view, a more holistic scale is provided, which helps to overcome a unilateral focus on knowledge (intangibles).

This work points out that the survey data were collected from a sample of 220 relationship managers of a specific financial institution. The results should be tested in other banks or organizations from other sectors to check their suitability and to be generalized.

From a practical point of view, it contributes a “tool” that can assist in the measurement of human capital and in the knowledge contained, dimensioning the organizational memory and human repositories.

This is the first study that provides a scale to measure organizational human capital from the Brazilian financial perspective.

The aim of this paper is to identify how human resource (HR) professionals can best approach the measurement of human capital. This is an evolving area and those organizations held up as exemplars are constantly reviewing their approach and measures and striving for better understanding of people contribution.

The paper draws on experience and research from within the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in the UK since 2000 and up to 2011, as well as external research sources.

The paper finds that there is no one way to carry out human capital measurement as it is context‐specific. However, there are certain people management measures that when applied would provide managers with useful insights in most organizations. More important than specific measures is that the processes around measurement are accurate and trustworthy.

All forms of capital must be evaluated and analyzed in context to understand how people drive business performance. Human capital only adds value if it can be successfully converted into goods and services that will make a profit.

The paper examines people management measures which provide managers with useful insight in most organizations. However, it concludes that it is more important that the processes around measurement should be accurate and trustworthy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between levels of human capital and financial performance of firms that use two distinct human resource management (HRM) strategies.

A survey of 128 HRM managers was conducted to assess differences in human capital between firms using different HRM strategies. A multiple regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between firms’ human capital and financial performance.

The results show that companies employing a make-organic strategy have a higher level of human capital than companies employing a buy-bureaucratic strategy. There was no relationship between the level of human capital and long term financial performance of firms with both make-organic and buy-bureaucratic strategies.

This research contributes toward understanding the effect of HRM strategy and facilitates an optimal strategy choice depending on the organization. However, this study did not consider the lead time between changes in human capital and the effect on financial performance.

The research encourages firm managers to understand the value of human capital, preparing them for changes in the future.

This study is among the first to investigate the relationship between human capital and financial performance considering different HRM strategies.

The distinction between discussing human capital (HC) and its actual measurement is the presence of indices and equations to substantiate the belief of measuring intangibles. The chapter makes a concise mention of research precedents, deriving leads for the foundation of HC. The chapter aims to provide clarity on the concept of HC measurement and bring to light the tools that can confer tangibility to intangibles. It argues that the measurement of HC is an achievable idea; furthering that a systematic review into the inter-disciplinary studies can offer viable solutions to the challenge of measuring intangibles. The chapter while discussing the contention makes a vivid mention of Bhutan’s gross national happiness (GNH), Happiness Seismograph, Cobb–Douglas model and others to make an impression on the minds of the reader.

Intellectual capital (IC) plays a crucial role in today’s volatile business landscape, yet its measurement remains complex. To better navigate these challenges, the authors propose the Integrated Intellectual Capital Measurement (IICM) model, an innovative, robust and comprehensive framework designed to capture IC amid business uncertainty. This study focuses on IC measurement models, typically reliant on secondary data, thus distinguishing it from conventional IC studies.

The authors conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and bibliometric analysis across Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO Business Source Ultimate in February 2023. This yielded 2,709 IC measurement studies, from which the authors selected 27 quantitative papers published from 1985 to 2023.

The analysis revealed no single, universally accepted approach for measuring IC, with company attributes such as size, industry and location significantly influencing IC measurement methods. A key finding is human capital’s critical yet underrepresented role in firm competitiveness, which the IICM model aims to elevate.

This is the first SLR focused on IC measurement amid business uncertainty, providing insights for better management and navigating turbulence. The authors envisage future research exploring the interplay between IC components, technology, innovation and network-building strategies for business resilience. Additionally, there is a need to understand better the IC’s impact on specific industries (automotive, transportation and hospitality), Social Development Goals and digital transformation performance.

In this paper, the work of the 2003 UK Task Force on Human Capital Management is reviewed. This initiative emerged from a broader Department of Trade and Industry interest in the better usage of human labour and potential, and focuses on the current practice and future possibilities for human capital management in the UK. We emphasise an “accounting influence” present throughout the work of the Task Force, and a predilection for dealing with human capital measurement and reporting within the planned expansion of the Operating and Financial Review. However, we argue that the report has been narrow in its appreciation of interest in the cognate field of intangibles and intellectual capital. It fails to recognise the accountancy discipline’s difficulties in reporting in these areas, as well as being possibly premature in delegating responsibility for human capital reporting to the Operating and Financial Review.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on advances in the understanding and practice of people evaluation in libraries. The paper is conceptual and offers a framework for human capital evaluation.

The research approach has been to employ a mixed method research strategy (multi-methodology), combining desk research exploring quantitative capital assessment methods from other industries, sectors and libraries; phenomenological observation of existing data collection and development concepts; and survey data from staff in case studies of the author's own and other organizations.

The synthesis suggests the measures required to populate the library capital dimension of the value scorecard, thereby providing an estimation of the value of a library's human capital.

The paper fills a gap through a broad survey of advances in people assessment in libraries, and provides a unique framework for human capital measurement in libraries.

Much like “Yeti,” the Abominable Snowman whose footprints are everywhere but itself nowhere to be seen, unfounded assertions of human capital as valuable contributors to strategic success continue to proliferate. Many of these treatments are nonbinding, nonmeasureable, idiosyncratic, tautological, and therefore nearly impossible to use for any comparative market valuation. In this chapter, we selectively review the interdisciplinary literature on exemplars of human-derived capital. We systematically examine specific epistemological strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in recognized theories, measures, and practices. In particular, a multidisciplinary, multilevel, connectionist point of view is suggested. We present the case for an evidence-based classification system of human-derived capital at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Our framework goes beyond static stock models by emphasizing dynamic human-derived capital flows, as well as their within-level and cross-level linkages, all within the context of a modern society that increasingly is networked, fluent with technology, and prodigious with social media.

This study aims to follow the development of human intellectual capital indicators over a six‐year period and to bring forward the production, transmission and reception of indicators in order to interpret the ambitions and technological and programmatic properties that characterize the development of the indicators. The case builds around an organization that collects human resource data from various organizations and redistributes indicators for benchmarking purposes.

The paper is based on a case, complemented with a survey. The design of the study is labeled as a case story, since it does not emphasize the organization itself, but rather the empirical material is analyzed to illustrate the production, transmission and reception of human capital measurements. The study thus follows the evolution of indicators in an organization specializing in human intellectual capital indicators.

The main conclusion of the study is that indicators may legitimize, serve as a heuristic tool for learning or mobilize the organization. The paper also suggests that human intellectual capital indicators may be produced, transmitted and received differently in relation to their technological and programmatic logics.

The study suggests that there is a need to develop a theory of indicators.

By emphasizing that not all that gets measured gets managed the paper's classification makes it possible to understand how indicators may contribute to the organization in different ways.