Page 122 - Rižnar, Igor, and Klemen Kavčič (ed.). 2017. Connecting Higher Education Institutions with Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 122
Franko Milost, Klara Dodič Pegan, and Tatjana Horvat
• to investigate, present and analyse the existing models and the
guidelines for measuring and reporting ic at foreign universities
in order to compare foreign experience in this area;
• to identify the three fundamental components of ic (human cap-
ital, structural capital and relational capital) at the u p;
• to identify a wide range of indicators of the three ic components
at the u p by analysing the university’s fundamental documents
(annual work programmes, annual reports and self-evaluation re-
ports), its strategy and its main objectives;
• to establish the perception of the ic concept at the u p by inter-
viewing the main representatives of the university’s management
and representatives of one university member/faculty (a chancel-
lor or vice-chancellor, a chief secretary and a dean of a faculty);
• to design an i c reporting model (on the basis of the previous
phases of the research) taking into consideration a university’s
particularities and thus complement the classic annual financial
statements of the university (balances).
The fundamental research question, arising from the defined re-
search problem, is: ‘Is it possible to design an i c measurement and
disclosure model, specifically for the needs of the u p, on the basis of
the existing models’ analysis and the identification of the three compo-
nents of ic and the indicators?’
The data for our research was gathered using three different meth-
ods of data collection: analysis of the contents of the documents, semi-
structured interviews and surveys.
Our purpose was to identify the indicators of each i c component
(human, structural and relational) – which could be included in the re-
porting model on i c at the u p – by analysing the u p’s fundamental
documents (strategy), business reports, annual work programmes and
self-evaluation reports for four consecutive years (2008, 2009, 2010 and
2011). For this purpose, the adding of content analysis in line with Hsieh
and Shannon’s (2005) classification was used.
The semi-structured individual interviews (our primary source of
data) were conducted with the representatives of the university’s man-
agement and the management of one university member (faculty), in
order to provide an insight into the university management’s perspec-
tive on ic. The data from the interviews was analysed using the method
of content analysis; a few elements of the reasoned analysis were taken
120
• to investigate, present and analyse the existing models and the
guidelines for measuring and reporting ic at foreign universities
in order to compare foreign experience in this area;
• to identify the three fundamental components of ic (human cap-
ital, structural capital and relational capital) at the u p;
• to identify a wide range of indicators of the three ic components
at the u p by analysing the university’s fundamental documents
(annual work programmes, annual reports and self-evaluation re-
ports), its strategy and its main objectives;
• to establish the perception of the ic concept at the u p by inter-
viewing the main representatives of the university’s management
and representatives of one university member/faculty (a chancel-
lor or vice-chancellor, a chief secretary and a dean of a faculty);
• to design an i c reporting model (on the basis of the previous
phases of the research) taking into consideration a university’s
particularities and thus complement the classic annual financial
statements of the university (balances).
The fundamental research question, arising from the defined re-
search problem, is: ‘Is it possible to design an i c measurement and
disclosure model, specifically for the needs of the u p, on the basis of
the existing models’ analysis and the identification of the three compo-
nents of ic and the indicators?’
The data for our research was gathered using three different meth-
ods of data collection: analysis of the contents of the documents, semi-
structured interviews and surveys.
Our purpose was to identify the indicators of each i c component
(human, structural and relational) – which could be included in the re-
porting model on i c at the u p – by analysing the u p’s fundamental
documents (strategy), business reports, annual work programmes and
self-evaluation reports for four consecutive years (2008, 2009, 2010 and
2011). For this purpose, the adding of content analysis in line with Hsieh
and Shannon’s (2005) classification was used.
The semi-structured individual interviews (our primary source of
data) were conducted with the representatives of the university’s man-
agement and the management of one university member (faculty), in
order to provide an insight into the university management’s perspec-
tive on ic. The data from the interviews was analysed using the method
of content analysis; a few elements of the reasoned analysis were taken
120
