Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop and apply an ontology-supported asset information integrator system (AIIS) in the domain of infrastructure management. The two objectives are: first, to describe how different ontologies developed as part of this research support the design of message templates (MTs) that were implemented in the AIIS; and second, to explain the development and application of the prototype system for tangible capital asset (TCA) reporting.

The proposed system was developed in the MS SharePoint platform using a four-step methodology: create a web site and library; review and modify MTs; design and configure workflows; and add functionalities.

First, the architecture, methodology, and evaluation of the two ontologies: Transaction Domain Ontology and Tangible Capital Asset Ontology, developed as part of this research work were briefly introduced to describe how both the ontologies supported the design of MTs that were implemented in the AIIS. Second, the AIIS was successfully developed and applied in the domain of infrastructure management for the Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment Reporting.

The development of the AIIS would enable industry experts to exchange the tangible capital information. The built-in search engine and history services would help the experts to search a transaction and track the transaction history. The real-time visualisation of the data would help in decision making.

Infrastructure agencies use diversified information systems to manage infrastructure systems. Due to propriety nature of the information systems, the TCA data generated is heterogeneous and inconsistent, which make it difficult to exchange with other organisations. Also, the existing applications focus on processing and managing the TCA data for a variety of tasks; however, lack to support data exchange with other organisations. This emphasises the gap that requires the development of an ontology-supported collaboration system in the domain of infrastructure asset management.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an ontology of eco or natural assets to represent eco asset knowledge at two levels: eco asset metal model and eco asset ontology (EA_Onto). The three objectives of this paper are to: define eco assets explicitly to reach a common understanding of the terms; evaluate the ontology; and discuss a potential area of application.

A seven-step methodology was used to develop the proposed ontology: define the scope; develop the eco asset meta model (EA_MM), define taxonomy, code ontology, capture ontology, evaluate ontology and document ontology.

The EA_MM was developed to represent eco asset domain knowledge, which was further extended to develop the EA_Onto, explicitly defining the eco asset knowledge in asset management. As a part of evaluation, it was found that the knowledge representation is consistent, concise, clear, complete and correct.

Theoretically, the proposed ontology is a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in asset management. Practically, the knowledge representation provides a common understanding of eco assets for asset management experts. In addition, it will be used in applications for effective eco asset management.

The current literature lacks explicit declaration of eco assets, how they are related to built environment for effective integration and how asset management functions are to be applied to accomplish effective eco asset management. Presently, eco assets are managed on an ad hoc basis, which need to be explicitly defined through developing an EA_Onto for implementation in applications for effective eco asset management.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a step-by-step procedure, referred to as transaction formalism protocol (TFP) that the transaction development personnel will use to formalise transactions (communications) in the domain of infrastructure management. The protocol is developed at two levels of abstraction: TFP specification and TFP tool. This paper presents the TFP specification in detail and introduces the TFP tool briefly. The specific focus of this paper is on the development process of the protocol specification.

A four-step approach is used to develop the TFP; including, identify and select existing standards, benchmark standards, link and build on these standards, and develop TFP. To develop the protocol, the function modelling standard, integration definition function modelling (IDEF0) is used. The IDEF0 treats each step of the protocol as a function.

The TFP specification and TFP tool are developed using the proposed methodology. The TFP specification specifies inputs, controls, mechanisms, tools/techniques, and outputs required in each step, whereas the TFP tool defines forms for each step of the protocol that the transaction development personnel will use to define transactions in the domain of infrastructure management.

The development of the TFP would enable the transaction development personnel (including transaction analysts, transaction designers, software developers, process modellers, and industry experts) to formalise transactions effectively and efficiently for the development of ICT-based collaboration systems.

The proposed protocol incorporates shortcomings of existing standards. In contrast to other design standards that focus on either design or design cum implementation of the work processes and communications, the proposed TFP includes transaction monitoring and improvements in addition to the design and implementation of communications. Unlike other standards, the TFP is a detailed step-by-step procedure to ease its usability and understandability.

We assess the impact of NZ IAS 32 on the financial reporting of convertible financial instruments by retrospective application of the standard to a sample of New Zealand companies over the period 1988 ‐ 2003. NZ IAS 32 has a broader definition of liabilities than does the corresponding current standard (FRS‐31) and it does not permit convertibles to be reported under headings that are intermediate to debt and equity. The results of the study indicate that in comparison with the reported financial position and performance, the reporting of convertibles in accordance with NZ IAS 32 would result in higher amounts for liabilities and higher interest. Thus, analysts using financial statement information to assess risk of financial distress will need to revise the critical values of commonly used measures of risk and performance when companies report under NZ IAS

This paper is focused on studying homogenous structure for tangible and intangible measurement systems. The aim is (1) to develop a conceptual homegenous structure for the combined tangible and intangible measurement and management system, (2) to present the connection between tangible and intangible measurement and management systems (3) to discuss the benefit of a developed system. The literature on intellectual capital (IC) advocates the use of an IC measurement system and stresses the importance of strategic planning and development. This paper describes how the structure of BSC can beutilized for both tangible and intangible measurement systems. The paper also illustrates the link between tangible and intangible systems. From the prior research a conceptual framework for the BSC‐based IC with causalities between perspectives is presented in the paper and used in the developed system. The paper is a conceptual analysis and provides a new innovative model for empirical testing.

This paper analyzes two types of potential intangible public-sector assets for consideration by public-sector accounting boards. Government investments in health and social programs can create two potential intangible assets: the intangible infrastructure used to deliver the health or social program and the enhanced human capital embodied in the recipients of program services. Because neither of these assets is currently recognized in a government's year-end financial statements or broader general-purpose financial reports (GPFR), these reports may underrepresent the government's true fiscal and service capacity.

The paper uses an international accounting standards framework to analyze: whether investments in health and social programs create intangible assets that meet the definition of an asset as set out by International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), whether they are assets of the government and whether they are recognizable for the purpose of financial reporting.

The intangible infrastructure asset created to facilitate the delivery of health and social programs would often qualify as a recognizable asset of the government. However, the enhanced recipient human capital asset created through the delivery of health and social programs would, in most instances, not qualify as a recognizable asset of the government, though there likely would be benefits from reporting on it through GPFRs or other mechanisms.

This paper makes two contributions. First, it identifies a previously overlooked intangible asset – the infrastructure created to facilitate the delivery of health and social programs. Second, it presents an argument regarding why, even when it fails to generate a recognizable intangible asset to government, it would be valuable for government to report such investments in supplementary statements.

Marketers frequently lament the lack of representation of marketing in the boardroom and the short tenure of CMOs. The most common explanations offered are that marketing is not perceived as a strategic discipline and that marketers do not demonstrate a strong enough understanding of how the business makes money.

Financial accounting is how “score is kept” in terms of business performance. It is, therefore, in the self-interest of marketers to become familiar with financial reporting. Doing so will allow them to understand how marketing activities are recorded. In addition, academic researchers need to understand the meaning of the financial measures that they often use as the metrics of success when researching marketing strategy questions.

This is especially important since financial reporting generally does not recognize assets created by marketing investments. In order to substantiate a claim that “brands are assets”, marketers must be able to explain how the financial accounting rules misrepresent economic reality and why managers might use a different set of principles for management reporting.

We argue that the misrepresentation of market-based assets has two forms of negative impact for marketers: external and internal. The external problems are that financial statements are not especially informative about the value of marketing for the providers of capital and do not provide a true portrait of the economic resource base of the company. The internal problems are that marketers cannot point to valuable assets that they are creating, nor can they be effectively held accountable for the way that these assets are managed given that the assets are not recorded.

We do not expect immediate radical changes in financial reporting because financial accounting rules are designed with the specific interests of the suppliers of capital (debt and equity) in mind. To influence financial accounting developments, such as encouraging greater disclosure of marketing activity in the notes to the published accounts, marketers must be able to communicate in language understood by accountants and the current users of financial accounts. To aid this we provide guidance for marketers on the purpose and practices of accounting. We also discuss how academic marketing researchers might wish to adjust financial accounting data to capitalize a proportion of marketing expenses for companies where marketing is a primary driver of business performance.

The purpose of this paper is to provide new evidence, made possible by human capital data that became available after IFRS adoption, on the productivity of intellectual capital and its components. These productivity measures are modelled to determine their value-relevance in the share market, and the modelling is extended to comparative productivity measures for the book-value of assets.

Financial data are sourced from financial databases and company annual reports on a sample of 160 Australian listed firms over a five-year period. Panel regression analysis is used to test five models built from Riahi-Belkaoui's (1999) general price model of the value-relevance of accounting numbers.

The results show that the productivity of human capital, structural capital and intellectual capital are each significantly positively related to share price (i.e. have value-relevance), whereas the productivity of total assets at book-value is non-significant and tangible assets is inversely significant.

This study constructs a new improved method of computing the amount of structural capital, and uses recently available financial statement data to provide first-time evidence on human capital and its inclusion in the determination of the amount of intellectual capital. These new models and data enable a direct comparison to be made between the value-relevance of intellectual and the book-value of assets.

This study examines the value relevance of recognised and disclosed revaluations of land and buildings for a large sample of Australian firms from 1993 through 1997. In contrast to prior research, we control for risk and cyclical effects and find no difference between recognised and disclosed revaluations, using yearly‐cross‐sectional and pooled regressions and using both market and non‐market dependent variables. We also find only weak evidence that revaluations of recognised and disclosed land and buildings are value relevant.