Search results1 – 7 of 7
The intellectual capital literature has concentrated on issues of defining, measuring, and reporting intellectual capital. The underlying thesis is that as the economy…
The intellectual capital literature has concentrated on issues of defining, measuring, and reporting intellectual capital. The underlying thesis is that as the economy becomes more reliant on intellectual assets management and measurement processes need to focus more on these types of assets to redress an overemphasis on monetary and physical assets. This article discusses intellectual capital concepts as a mechanism for strategic analysis and facilitator of the strategy‐formulation process. It briefly considers the nature of strategy, two major strands of strategic thinking, the external view and the resource‐based view, and the advantages of the intellectual capital approach. The authors argue that the intellectual capital approach has a number of advantages leading to more effective implementation and strategic performance measurement.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the IC Rating™ approach as a management consulting approach to measure intellectual capital and to report on the implementation…
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the IC Rating™ approach as a management consulting approach to measure intellectual capital and to report on the implementation and experience in one case study firm.
The paper describes the IC Rating™ model in the context of the exiting literature in the field of IC measurement and uses a case study to demonstrate its practical application.
Based on the presented case study as well as implementations in other organizations we find the IC Rating™ model a useful tool to facilitate the analysis and discussion about intellectual capital in organizations.
The article gives a complementary view to the most commonly used score card methods and guidelines for intangibles on how intangibles can be measured. IC Rating™ focuses on the comparability between companies and industries as well as a simplification of how to interpret intangible measures.
The original idea for the paper was to answer the question “Why do companies really need to measure and develop intangibles?”. The answer is “To improve company financial performance”. The IC Rating™ methodology is therefore based on the answers to two other questions: “Which parameters does an executive manager need to have insightful knowledge of, in order to make the right decisions for the future?” and “From where and whom should the executive manager receive this information?”.
The purpose with the paper is to bring forward the opportunities we face by realizing that future economics lie in knowledge and intangibles. We want to communicate this…
The purpose with the paper is to bring forward the opportunities we face by realizing that future economics lie in knowledge and intangibles. We want to communicate this as a giant business potential, as capital in waiting by introducing some tools and cases. Two concrete leadership tools are presented and discussed (IC Rating and Balanced Scorecard‐like approaches) and cases from different places around the globe are introduced. These methods and conclusions will support any organization wishing to take part in the intellectual capital evolution. The countries, societies, businesses and individuals grasping the opportunity of exploit their intellectual capital in waiting will be the winners of tomorrow. Their skills will be shown in new cultivated leadership, new company navigation tools for strategic mapping and measurement, transparent reporting of intangibles as well as new approaches to risk assessment. The longitude perspective of Leif Edvinsson is for the first time combined with the extensive research made within the EU project, PRISM, as well as with two of the most popular practical applications of intangible measurements, IC Rating and the BSC. In addition, the IC Rating and BSC are intertwined, introducing a completely new approach for organizational development, Sei‐Cho.
With intellectual capital and intangible assets high on the agenda of executives around the world, and little practical evidence of good practice in measuring and managing…
With intellectual capital and intangible assets high on the agenda of executives around the world, and little practical evidence of good practice in measuring and managing these assets, there is a great need for help. This editorial to a special issue on the topic introduces the problem and highlights key issues. The special issue provides an overview of how management consulting companies acting in this space suggest tackling the problem. The purpose is therefore to bring together the approaches of different management consulting firms and to make their differences explicit.
All major general management consulting firms as well as specialist consulting firms focusing in the area of intellectual capital and intangible assets were directly invited to submit a paper for this special issue. The call for papers was also made publicly available in the journal and through e‐mail campaigns by Emerald. All submissions underwent a double‐blind refereed selection process.
Even though many submissions were received for this special issue, most of the authors were not able to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the constructs nor were they able to justify the tools and methodologies developed. Reviewers were made aware of the practical background of many of the authors and it was ensured that sufficient and constructive feedback was provided. Even with various rounds of reviews many papers had to be rejected as they resembled marketing brochures rather then logical discussions. This unfortunately shows that there still is a massive skills gap in the industry and companies should be careful before they engage with any management consulting firm to help them measuring or managing their intangibles.
The focus of potential papers was not academic rigor (as opposed to the Special Issue Vol. 5 No 2) but the provision of an overview of the state of the art in intellectual capital consulting practice. The papers therefore provide practitioners with good insights into current practice.
This special issue is the first to bring together in a structured and rigorous format different management consulting approaches to the measurement and management of intellectual capital and intangible assets.
This conversation with Göran Roos explores leveraging the interrelated roles of intellectual capital and strategy in contemporary organizations. Roos has created frameworks which make the intangible of intellectual capital understood as a very real asset and to be cultivated, measured and appropriately exploited for competitive advantage. The conversation examines how to work with management to rethink strategies and practices to determine and utilize the drivers for intellectual capital growth, as well as how to rigorously valuate and effectively use intellectual resources throughout their enterprises to make significant differences. These approaches have been used in a wide variety of both private and public sector organizations around the world in a broad range of market segments.
Objective. To quantify the association between obesity and somatic hospital costs and number of overall somatic hospital contacts – number of inpatient admissions, number…
Objective. To quantify the association between obesity and somatic hospital costs and number of overall somatic hospital contacts – number of inpatient admissions, number of outpatient visits, and number of emergency department visits – based on anthropometric measurements of waist circumference (WC) and information from The National Patient Registry and The Danish Case-Mix System (DRG).
Participants. The study population consisted of two sub-samples from the Inter99 study at Research Centre for Prevention and Health in 1999–2001. One sub-sample used WC as an indicator for obesity (n=5,151), whereas the other used BMI as an indicator for obesity (n=4,048). Using WC, obesity was defined as WC > 102cm for men and > 88cm for women. Normal weight was defined as circumference < 94cm for men and < 80cm for women. Using BMI, obesity was defined as BMI > 30kg/m2, whereas individuals with BMI=18.5–24.9kg/m2 were defined as normal weight. Individuals with BMI < 18.5kg/m2 were excluded from both sub-samples.
Design. We undertook a 3-year retrospective study of the relationship between obesity and use of hospital resources. Data on hospital contacts and costs were obtained from The National Patient Registry and DRG. Analyses were performed using two-part models and Poisson regression. Outcome variables were costs and hospital contacts.
Results. This study has demonstrated that obese individuals have a greater use of hospital services and greater hospital costs compared with normal weight individuals. When using WC as an indicator for obesity, mean hospital costs were 33.8% greater among obese women and 45.3% greater among obese men in a 3-year period but the differences were not significant. When using BMI to measure obesity, obese men had significantly greater costs (57.5%) than normal weight men.
Furthermore, obese men and women (indicated byWC) had an increased number of hospital contacts compared with normal weight individuals (rate ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.21–1.43 for men and 1.20, 95% CI 1.11–1.28 for women) including inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, and emergency department visits. The same trends were seen when obesity was indicated by BMI.