Search results

1 – 4 of 4
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Samuli Aho, Sten Ståhle and Pirjo Ståhle

This paper seeks to examine the calculated intangible value (CIV) method as a measure of intellectual capital (intangibles) in enterprises. The aim is to show the benefits

Abstract

Purpose

This paper seeks to examine the calculated intangible value (CIV) method as a measure of intellectual capital (intangibles) in enterprises. The aim is to show the benefits and disadvantages of the method and its actual relation to intellectual capital.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors present a conceptual, theoretical and empirical analysis of CIV to assess its validity as a measure of firm's intangibles.

Findings

The result of the analyses is that CIV is connected to all types of capital assets (physical, financial, combined physical and financial and intangible) and thus it does not unambiguously relate or measure firm's intangible value(s). CIV should be seen solely as a measure of financial efficiency derived from companies' return on assets (ROA). CIV measures an overall financial recognized comparative advantage in comparison with competitors within the same branch of industry. There is no evidence to support the simplistic assumption that a company's CIV is a measure of its intellectual capital.

Originality/value

CIV is used quite widely for purposes of measuring intellectual capital in companies and industries. However, its validity has never been subjected to critical examination. The results of this paper provide valuable information on the reliable measurement of intellectual capital and the further development of these measurements.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Pirjo Ståhle, Sten Ståhle and Samuli Aho

The purpose of this study is to analyse the validity of the value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) method as an indicator of intellectual capital.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyse the validity of the value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) method as an indicator of intellectual capital.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper describes VAIC through its calculation formulae and aims to establish what exactly it is that the method measures. It also looks in detail at how intellectual capital is understood in the method, and discusses its conceptual confusions. Furthermore, the paper tests the hypothesis according to which VAIC correlates with a company's stock market value, and reflects the contradictory results of earlier studies.

Findings

The analyses show, first, that VAIC indicates the efficiency of the company's labour and capital investments, and has nothing to do with intellectual capital. Furthermore, the calculation method uses overlapping variables and has other serious validity problems. Second, the results do not lend support to the hypothesis that VAIC correlates with a company's stock market value. The main reasons behind the lack of consistency in earlier VAIC results lie in the confusion of capitalized and cash flow entities in the calculation of structural capital and in the misuse of intellectual capital concepts.

Practical implications

The analyses show that VAIC is an invalid measure of intellectual capital.

Originality/value

The result is important since the method has been widely used in micro and macro level analyses, but this is the first time it has been put to rigorous scientific analysis.

Abstract

Details

Measuring Business Excellence, vol. 15 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1368-3047

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Eugénia Pedro, João Leitão and Helena Alves

For better mapping the path of intellectual capital (IC) research, the purpose of this paper is to selectively review empirical studies of IC published, and identify…

Abstract

Purpose

For better mapping the path of intellectual capital (IC) research, the purpose of this paper is to selectively review empirical studies of IC published, and identify theories, components and three dimensions of analysis: national IC (NIC), regional IC (RIC) and organizational IC (OIC).

Design/methodology/approach

The systematic literature review (SLR) subject to analysis is based on empirical studies made between 1960 and 2016, and focuses on three dimensions of analysis: NIC, RIC and OIC. Four research questions were designed, using the following databases, namely, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, for data collection purposes.

Findings

The SLR unveils a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis and provides some recommendations for future studies of NIC, RIC and OIC, by outlining the need for clear definitions of components and measures of IC and identifying strengths, limitations and future research avenues.

Originality/value

In order to fill the gap found in the literature and the non-existence of a study clarifying the multiple dimensions of analysis of IC, this SLR makes a twofold, original contribution to the literature on management: providing an SLR of the main empirical studies dealing with different units of analysis; and identifying a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis.

Details

Management Decision, vol. 56 no. 11
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0025-1747

Keywords

1 – 4 of 4