Entrepreneurship and innovativeness: in search of the interrelationships

Czop, Katarzyna; Leszczyńska, Agnieszka

doi:10.1504/ijil.2011.041795

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Emerging trends such as brand value and global sourcing have contributed a great deal to several significant changes in an organization during the past a few years (Marr and Schiuma, 2001; Schiuma and Lerro, 2008). Apparently, a firm's competitive advantage and value creation have derived more from its intangible assets (Chan, 2009; Czop and Leszczynska, 2011). Based on the statistics of S&P 500 market value (in reference to www.OceanTomo.com), the intangible assets generally represent 80 percent of a firm's value.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity management: integrating the intellectual capital

Phusavat

Comepa

Sitko-Lutek

et al. 2013

Industrial Management &Amp; Data Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe intangible assets are important today as knowledge and innovation are the key drivers to long‐term business competitiveness. In other words, this competitiveness requires the productive use of the intangible assets. Thus, measuring productivity should underline their importance within an organization. Therefore, the study aims to examine whether the intellectual capital or IC can be used to support productivity measurement.Design/methodology/approachThe research methodology consists of two stages, derived from the management process which deals with measurement and analysis. The first stage tests the interrelationships between productivity (namely value‐added labor productivity) and the IC. This test is based on a company's financial reports and the IC survey. The second stage focuses on better understanding on how IC can be analyzed. Altogether ten leading manufacturers, with 270 executives and managers, have participated in the survey. Important statistical techniques such as Pearson Correlation are integrated. Moreover, the consideration into the validity of the survey items (e.g. the non‐respondent bias analysis) is illustrated.FindingsBecause of the significant relationships between the IC and value‐added productivity, measuring the IC can strengthen ongoing productivity measurement efforts on a firm's intangible assets. In other words, the IC can become a surrogate for productivity measurement. To assist the IC analysis further, the IC is positively influenced by innovation, learning organization, knowledge management, and self‐directed learning, respectively. In other words, the innovation appears to have the highest impact on the IC level while the ability of an organization to learn and to apply knowledge also has considerable influences.Originality/valueThe emerging use of the term value‐added highlights the importance of IC within the context of productivity measurement. Past studies have focused on relating some the IC components such as innovation and quality of work life to the productivity level. This study attempts to look at the IC in a more comprehensive manner.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity management: integrating the intellectual capital

Phusavat

Comepa

Sitko-Lutek

et al. 2013

Industrial Management &Amp; Data Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Constantly measuring the IC level and publish the results openly should help create more awareness on innovation and entrepreneurship within an organization. This is essential in building long‐term capability in creativity (Czop and Leszczynska, 2011). In the past, the DIW has encouraged local firms to measure quality and productivity (including EVA) as their key non‐financial area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intellectual capital: national implications for industrial competitiveness

Phusavat

Comepa

Sitko-Lutek

et al. 2012

Industrial Management &Amp; Data Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper is based on a project with the Department of Industrial Work (DIW) in Thailand for promoting intellectual capital (IC), which aims to boost the country's long‐term industrial competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the interrelationships between IC and economic development (i.e. GDP per capita) in Thailand and other neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. The second objective is to identify the IC targets to help enable the DIW to propose future policy initiatives relating to IC.Design/methodology/approachThe key steps include a selection of IC indicator(s) to assess IC impacts on the country's economic development. There are five countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) to be examined for the IC impacts due to their economy sizes. The methodology involves statistical analysis for understanding the interrelationships and identifying the IC targets for Thailand and the future policy initiatives are derived through the review discussion with DIW administrators.FindingsInitially, two IC indicators were selected. However, only National Intellectual Capital Indicator (NICI) was statistically significant to the GDP per capita. A further examination revealed that the NICI target for Thailand and a remaining three countries needs to reach 5.0, in order to move from the efficiency‐driven to the innovation‐driven stage. The economic development stages are outlined by the Global Competitiveness Report (published by World Economic Forum) which indicates a GDP per capita over $US 17,000.Originality/valueThe paper underlines the need for the DIW to continue a development of the IC‐related performance indicators for local firms, in both manufacturing and service sectors. In the past, the DIW has encouraged them to primarily measure quality and productivity (including Economic Value Added) as their key non‐financial area. The IC‐related indicators may emerge as one of several alternatives for productivity and quality measurement.

show abstract

“…In this context, Van Praag and Versloot (2007) claim that entrepreneurship makes a significant contribution to income generation, job creation, research and development (R&D) as well as generating a wide spectrum of economic benefits that exceed the personal rewards that accrue to the entrepreneurs themselves. In addition, the vast proportion of emergent technological, product, service, knowledge and process innovation is linked to entrepreneurial activities which diverge from imitative and 'me too' approaches to small business creation and management (Bessant and Tidd, 2007;Czop and Leszczynska, 2011).…”

Section: The Importance Of Eeementioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom or Prescription: The Case for Curriculum Guidance in Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education

Rae¹,

Matlay²,

McGowan³

et al. 2014

Industry and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the development of guidance and frameworks for enterprise and entrepreneurship education (EEE) in higher education institutions with reference to the international and European contexts as well as educational development in the UK and Ireland. The arguments for and the possible limitations and disadvantages of such frameworks are discussed. There has been extensive work on EEE and on the development of competence models, for example at secondary education level. This work is critically reviewed to identify its contribution to the development of educational guidance internationally and specifically in the UK and Ireland. The paper provides a critical narrative of the development of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) guidance in the UK and the Higher Education Training and Awards Council (HETAC) document in Ireland by experts involved in the design process and compares the approaches proposed. While at European level there has been greater emphasis on institutional frameworks focusing on the ‘entrepreneurial university’, there is scope for comparison with the above educational frameworks. Feedback and observations from enterprise educators at an international level are summarized to contextualize a debate on the value, contribution, possible disadvantages and future development of such frameworks. The international interest in and adoption of related approaches have been considerable and these are assessed. The paper has implications for educational policies on EEE at national and HE institutional levels, as well as for the practices of educators in designing, validating and delivering educational awards.

show abstract

Entrepreneurship and innovativeness: in search of the interrelationships

Cited by 11 publications

References 71 publications

Productivity management: integrating the intellectual capital

Productivity management: integrating the intellectual capital

Intellectual capital: national implications for industrial competitiveness

Freedom or Prescription: The Case for Curriculum Guidance in Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About