Page 121 - Rižnar, Igor, and Klemen Kavčič (ed.). 2017. Connecting Higher Education Institutions with Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 121
Intellectual Capital Report of the University
The Term ic and the Components of ic
Different authors define the term ic in different ways. Edvinsson and
Malone (1997, 44) define it as knowledge, applied experience, informa-
tion technology, relations with clients and professional skills that pro-
vide a competitive advantage. Brooking (1998, 12) defines it as a combi-
nation of intangible assets that enable a company’s operation. Stewart
(1997, xx) defines it as intellectual material that can create wealth, as
collective brain power and as all the human knowledge in a company
that provides a competitive advantage. Roos et al. (2000, 19) define it
as the sum of the company employees’ knowledge and as the practi-
cal application of this knowledge. Harrison and Sullivan (2000, 34) de-
fine it as knowledge that can be turned into profit. In contrast, Rastogi
(2003, 228) defines it as the holistic meta-level capability of generat-
ing value by using knowledge as the main resource. However, besides
the term ic, some authors use other expressions, such as invisible as-
sets (Itami 1987), core competency (Hamel and Prahalad 1990), intan-
gible resources (Haanes and Lowendahl 1997), intangible assets (Sveiby
1997), etc.
In terms of components, ic is also defined in different ways. Stew-
art (1997, 253) defines it as the total human capital of a company and
its organisational structure. The same definition is provided by Edvins-
son and Sullivan (1996, 358) and Edvinsson and Malone (1997, 11). In
contrast, Petrash (1996, 366) defines it as the total human capital of a
company, its relations and its organisational structure. This definition
is also stated by Lynn (1998, 14), as well as in the following studies: The
Society of Management Accountants of Canada (1998, 13) and Finan-
cial and Management Accounting Committee (1999, 6). Furthermore,
Brooking (1996, 13) defines it as the total human capital of a company,
its relations, its organisational structure and industrial property rights.
Chen, Zhu, and Xie (2004, 202) define it as the human capital of a com-
pany, its relations, innovation, clients, etc.
The Purpose and Objectives of the Research, the Research
Question and Assumptions, and Limitations of the Research
The purpose of the research was to provide an in-depth insight into the
state of ic at the u p, to define its components, the indicators for the
disclosure of its individual forms and to use them to design an ic re-
porting model.
The primary objectives of the research are:
119
The Term ic and the Components of ic
Different authors define the term ic in different ways. Edvinsson and
Malone (1997, 44) define it as knowledge, applied experience, informa-
tion technology, relations with clients and professional skills that pro-
vide a competitive advantage. Brooking (1998, 12) defines it as a combi-
nation of intangible assets that enable a company’s operation. Stewart
(1997, xx) defines it as intellectual material that can create wealth, as
collective brain power and as all the human knowledge in a company
that provides a competitive advantage. Roos et al. (2000, 19) define it
as the sum of the company employees’ knowledge and as the practi-
cal application of this knowledge. Harrison and Sullivan (2000, 34) de-
fine it as knowledge that can be turned into profit. In contrast, Rastogi
(2003, 228) defines it as the holistic meta-level capability of generat-
ing value by using knowledge as the main resource. However, besides
the term ic, some authors use other expressions, such as invisible as-
sets (Itami 1987), core competency (Hamel and Prahalad 1990), intan-
gible resources (Haanes and Lowendahl 1997), intangible assets (Sveiby
1997), etc.
In terms of components, ic is also defined in different ways. Stew-
art (1997, 253) defines it as the total human capital of a company and
its organisational structure. The same definition is provided by Edvins-
son and Sullivan (1996, 358) and Edvinsson and Malone (1997, 11). In
contrast, Petrash (1996, 366) defines it as the total human capital of a
company, its relations and its organisational structure. This definition
is also stated by Lynn (1998, 14), as well as in the following studies: The
Society of Management Accountants of Canada (1998, 13) and Finan-
cial and Management Accounting Committee (1999, 6). Furthermore,
Brooking (1996, 13) defines it as the total human capital of a company,
its relations, its organisational structure and industrial property rights.
Chen, Zhu, and Xie (2004, 202) define it as the human capital of a com-
pany, its relations, innovation, clients, etc.
The Purpose and Objectives of the Research, the Research
Question and Assumptions, and Limitations of the Research
The purpose of the research was to provide an in-depth insight into the
state of ic at the u p, to define its components, the indicators for the
disclosure of its individual forms and to use them to design an ic re-
porting model.
The primary objectives of the research are:
119
