Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the results of an empirical study into the critical success factors for implementing an intellectual capital valuation method, the KPMG Value Explorer.

For this study the design approach was used as research methodology.

The research shows the strengths and weaknesses of the method and identifies four general critical success factors for the implementation of intellectual capital valuation and measurement tools.

The research was based on six case studies. Application of the method with other companies may provide further grounding of the conclusions.

The research shows that practitioners who want to implement an intellectual capital valuation or measurement method must: perform a proper diagnosis of the problem at hand; have knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the method they want to use; understand the application domain of the method – the class of problems and the class of contexts for which the method needs to provide a solution; and possess the necessary skills to implement the method.

Successfully implementing a method for the valuation or measurement of intellectual capital is not an easy task. Practitioners yet receive little support from the intellectual capital research community. Little research has been done into the factors that influence the success of a method. This paper is a first attempt at systematically identifying some of the factors for the successful implementation of an intellectual capital valuation or measurement method.

The aim of this study is to reflect on how the specific nature of intellectual capital influences the valuation process, in practice, and how it impacts on some of the qualities of its value.

This study is based on a case study (“Ankon”) developed by adopting a modest interventionist approach.

This study highlights the relevance of the intellectual capital valuation process in spite of the intellectual capital value per se. In fact, while intellectual capital value seems to present a limited level of objectivity, consistency, comparability and understandability, its valuation process can be considered an opportunity to visualise and understand intellectual capital and its influence on financial performance. In other words, intellectual capital valuation can be considered as a practice useful to crave the attention of the managers on intellectual capital in action.

The main limitations of this study are related to the particular research methodology adopted (action research case study) and to the size of the case investigated.

The findings provided by this research should be useful to those interested in studying intellectual capital in action and in developing new valuation models or refining existing models. Finally, considering that some of the limitations of intellectual capital value can be related to the absence of generally accepted valuation guidelines (e.g. the absence of a common definition, a single process, etc.), this can represent an incentive for policy makers to draw up useful rules to make intellectual capital value more understandable for an outsider and to identify managerial best practices.

In comparison with previous studies on intellectual capital valuation, this one focuses on an in vivo intellectual capital valuation process. In addition, this research stresses the specificities and criticalities that emerge from a process perspective in which intellectual capital is considered as a conventional object. Moreover, this paper enriches the previous critical discussions on intellectual capital measurement focusing on intellectual capital financial value.

The purpose of this paper is to enrich the scientific and managerial debate on intangibles by placing the concept of key money within the broader concept of Intellectual Capital, and by proposing an evaluation approach for a portion of the latter, focusing the analysis on fashion retailers.

This research focuses on the fashion industry, given that key money gains particular significance and accounted for in fashion retailers' financial statements. A comparative case study is presented with regard to the application of two evaluation methods proposed to some fashion retailers operating in Italy.

This paper defines a suitable placement for key money within the vast structure of intellectual capital. The research shows that the two methods give “very close” key money values, thus laying the foundations for a theoretical articulation of interest to be further explored in future researches.

The document represents a first in-depth examination regarding the evaluation and inclusion of key money in the intellectual capital. A further element of originality lies in having interpreted the key money in a perspective closer to the world of intangibles and competitive strategies, to the detriment of the previous (meagre) settings that placed it within the real estate branches of study.

The purpose of this paper is to link two key disciplines in finance and science in a way which is representative of the many challenges in the development of the knowledge economy. However, the valuation of intangibles remains a contentious issue in finance.

In this paper, the financial and economic issues pertaining to the valuation of intellectual capital are evaluated and addressed.

An important aspect of raising capital is the ability to impute a fair value on the asset.

The investigative process involves evaluating and assessing the appropriateness and efficiency of current models and finds them to be inadequate in yielding the true value of intellectual capital employed in knowledge‐intensive firms.

A new methodology for valuation is indeed required, and this value driver valuation processes may produce significantly better understandings of the worth of intellectual capital in the knowledge economy.

This paper evaluates various methods that are currently used and recommends the development of a valuation process for new and evolving technologies.

The aim of this paper is to propose extended intellectual capital (IC) indicators. The study shows that the essence of IC in the context of value is residual income, its growth rate and growth rate of equity taken together. It allows creating IC measures (modified residual income and economic value added of equity) that contain these components. The study investigates the relationship between IC and market value for Russian public firms.

The authors propose modified residual income and modified economic value added of equity as IC metrics. This study tests a relationship between market value and IC to investigate suggested metrics. Static and dynamic panel data models are used. 25 companies from the MOEX Russia Index were included in the study. The study covers the period from 2014 to 2018.

The findings show a strong positive relationship between market value and IC. The results confirm that extended IC measures have a stronger connection to market value.

Firstly, these results benefit managers. They can use proposed extended IC measures as targets for the company when planning business strategy and generating business environment. Secondly, suggested IC measures can help shareholders and investors achieve their long-term goal – wealth maximization.

The value of this article is the development of IC theory and valuation. The proposed measures differ in the way that they consider the growth rates – the main determinants of value along with efficiency.

The main purpose of this study is to contribute to the theory of intellectual capital (IC) with the new IC valuation method based on the economic value added (EVA^®) concept as well as to present the Innovation Funnel, which is a useful management method and tool from which companies would benefit.

The paper first explains the links and differences between IC and intellectual assets (IAs) and aims at improving the reader's understanding of the share of the two classes of shareholders, monetary capital investors and intellectual capital investors, of the innovative start‐ups. The paper provides practical guidance for use in IC valuation and financial management of innovation rather than a theoretical framework, and is based on the literature on innovation, IC, corporate finance as well as the practical experience of a few early stage venture capitals with whom the author cooperates.

The findings show a way of calculating fair share of an innovative company's shareholdings. The method reflects the risk adjusted future value of cash invested by monetary capital investors and a real market value of IC contributed by the founders. The paper also presents a method of financial management of innovation projects.

The presented methods focus on creating shareholder value and on financial aspects of IC rather than on IC indicators and their graphical representation, hence, members of the IC community who seek more practical concepts may be more interested in the paper.

The paper proposes a practical perspective on the method for IC valuation, innovation projects' financial management, as well as fair division of a start‐up shares between intellectual and monetary capital investors that would be useful for venture capital officers, innovative companies founders and R&D centers' managers.

This study aims to validate a direct method to measure relational capital through the estimation of corporate brands. Considering the influence of relational capital management in leading performance and brand development, we consider brand value as a proxy for relational capital. The main research goal is to extend the previous literature on intellectual capital, financial performance and brand management by elaborating and testing an original approach for valuating corporate brands using regression analysis on multiples based on firm-specific accounting data and market information.

The authors propose two econometric models, for both listed and non-listed companies, which consider brand valuations made by primary consulting entities (Interbrand, Brand Finance, BrandZ, European Brand Institute) and multiples derived from accounting and market data of firms. Models were tested on a sample of nonfinancial firms for the period from 2006 to 2019, distinguishing between IAS/IFRS-based and US GAAP-based reporting standards.

The empirical results show that the identified set of market and accounting multiples proved to be significant information for estimating the value of brands within the IAS/IFRS framework, while a lower explanatory power was assessed for US GAAP firms. Furthermore, the empirical evidence confirm that the direct, relative approach based on multiples is more accurate for valuating listed firms than non-listed firms. Robustness analysis demonstrates that findings do not change significantly when the reference datasets and the main assumptions of the models are altered.

The statistical significance of the analysis is limited by the non-objective nature of brand value estimates. The use of additional sources for brand valuations might allow for the further assessment of the robustness of the relationships identified.

Due to their efficacy and ease of use, the proposed models represent valid practical tools for managers, investors, analysts and professional evaluators.

This work contributes to the existing literature through the identification of significant, stable relationships between brand values and the main economic, financial and asset characteristics of firms; the identification of those relationships would allow for the extension of the multiples approach also to the evaluation of brands.

This paper aims to assess how to select an appropriate intellectual property valuation method according to the valuation situation and context.

The article describes the difference between the quantitative and qualitative methods and principles. It reviews the principal approaches and methods used to evaluate an intellectual property asset and proposes a framework to help the evaluators to select an appropriate valuation method. The paper initiates a discussion on the parameters and requirements that influence the choice of an IP valuation method in order to reach the expected valuation result.

This paper provides useful guidelines for any evaluator who would be responsible for executing an IP valuation and who would be faced with the difficult task of choosing an appropriate IP valuation method. It is the intention of this paper to develop a synthesised and integrated procedure for the selection of an IP valuation method.

The limitation of this paper is that not all of the existing methods were described and taken into account in the final proposed procedure. The authors made a series of assumptions and a selection of the methods that may not be entirely shared by other researchers and practitioners. The authors are conscious that this constitutes a first proposal in the selection process of the most relevant IP valuation method. Further discussions and developments would be carried on in the future to enhance the proposed procedure.

This paper proposes a framework to orientate the choice of an appropriate IP valuation method according to the context and situation in which the valuation is to be implemented.

The debate on the determinants of firm value is ongoing; and the increasing gap in the book‐to‐market ratio (Lev & Sougiannis 1999) has yet to be explained in the financial literature. This article contributes to the debate by examining whether intellectual capital measured using the value added intellectual coefficient (VAICTM) (Pulic 1998) contributes to the explanation of the book‐to‐market ratio. This study used Ohlson’s 1995 valuation model and JSE Securities Exchange (SA) (JSE) data in an attempt to identify whether the book value of assets, accounting (accrual) earnings and VAICTM explain the behaviour of South African share prices. The panel data least squares model results indicate a significant relationship between share prices three months after year end, and abnormal earnings, abnormal cash dividends, book value of assets, the capital employed coefficient, and the human capital coefficient.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a model to help RTC managers in the technological and R&D decisions and bets so as to change the perceived value of the R&D projects of the centres. To achieve this aim, the paper investigates the different models for the valuation of intangible assets.

The paper presents a single case study and focusses on creating a useful IC valuation model for the centre, using existing methods and frameworks in IP and IC fields.

The paper presents a new method for the calculation of IC applied to a RTC in ICT sector, in which the valuation of the IP is included (software libraries) and the KM and the peculiarities of these kinds of organisations are explained. The model is based on Edvinsson and Malone (1997) and Leitner (2005).

Although the use of a single case provides rich data, it is also limits the generalisability to other RTCs. Another limitation is that not all existing methods were explained. This new method constitutes a first proposal for the IP and IC valuation in RTCs and further discussion and development would be carried out in the future.

The results suggest an IP and IC measurement model to improve the strategic and technological decisions making.

This paper may favour the competitiveness of companies engaged in intangible assets (knowledge, R&D) and the negotiation of the contracts since it arrives to determine a value for the intellectual property (software libraries) and intellectual capital.

This paper proposes an IC Model orientated towards an RTC context and to provide a value perspective for them. The authors are practitioners and the model is in use.