From measuring to learning? – Probing the evolutionary path of IC research and practice

Abstract

PurposeIn line with an emerging critical trend in the field of intellectual capital (IC), the aim of this paper is to probe the evolutionary path of IC research and practices. The paper aims to argue that IC research and practices need to shift from the measuring paradigm to a learning paradigm.Design/methodology/approachA total of 15 interviews with experienced IC consultants were conducted while they were all working on a European Commission funded IC project across five European countries from 2005 to 2008. Altogether their voices constitute a critical line of thought.FindingsThe findings showed that a learning paradigm does not take a stand against the measuring paradigm, however it does transform the measuring paradigm, as it takes it to a new level of understanding by engaging a firm's attention to the socio‐psychological mechanism that generates and sustains IC flows. IC flows entail new knowledge flows, practice flows, and affect flows that elicit organizational change and innovation.Practical implicationsThe paper discusses two implications of this research. First, effective IC flow management may strengthen a firm's future earning potential by allowing for value‐added activities and by nurturing a strong learning motive. Second, three criteria for IC information disclosure are proposed to work around the issue of management control and/or public relations manipulation. The paper suggests that the design and implementation of IC models within a reporting framework should aim to make the concept of IC more accessible, actionable, and effective.Originality/valueThis paper offers a novel conceptual framework and an operational context which explore the possible ways of advancing IC research and practices.

Reflections on JIC’s twenty-year history and suggestions for future IC research

“…In the 2013 special issue entitled “Beyond the crossroads – the third stage of intellectual capital research,” guest editor Dumay (2013) introduced a number of papers that broke away from the dominance of IC accounting, including those of Yu and Humphreys (2013) who utilized a learning focus to examine the flow of IC; Wasiluk (2013) who promoted the sustainability of the ecosystem in which the organization exists, rather than simply that of the organization itself; and Giuliani's (2013) paper on intellectual liabilities recognized that IC can create, but also destroy value. All three demonstrate new ways of researching IC.…”

The role of intellectual capital in fostering SD-Orientation and firm performance

“…According to some authors (Chen et al, 2004;Cuganesan and Dumay, 2009;Marr et al, 2004;Yu and Humphreys, 2013), these contradictions might be due to the fact that each individual IC dimension is insufficient to improve a firm's performance, and so there is a need to work on all these components in a combined way that results in interactions, transformations and complementarities. The firm needs to increase its overall IC in order to improve its performance (Chen et al, 2004).…”

Describing the process of creating an intellectual capital management framework: An interventionist case study

“…Other authors argue that IC research and practices need to shift from the measuring paradigm to a learning paradigm. “The measuring paradigm is known for its two severe limitations: first, it treats IC as an asset that is placed under parsimonious conditions within a reporting system; and second, it also accepts the managerial adage of ‘what gets measured gets managed’ uncritically, at the risk of reinforcing management control in organizations” (Yu & Humphreys, , p. 39). Far more important than the mere measurement of IC assets in organizations, the understanding and management of IC flows gain particular relevance, as it can reveal hidden value‐added activities and develop a stronger learning culture regarding the importance and impact of IC elements.…”

“…However, it does transform it, as it reinforces the sociopsychological mechanisms that sustain IC management. This includes identifying new knowledge and practice flows, which ultimately stimulate organizational change and innovation (Yu & Humphreys, ). The introduction of a new IC framework highlights the fusion of cognitive and social factors in knowledge production and interpretation (Dumay & Rooney, ).…”