Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a university that uses a collective intelligence approach for managing its intellectual capital (IC). Specifically, the authors investigate how one of Europe’s oldest business schools, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy), manages IC through stakeholder engagement to achieve academia’s third mission so contributing to social and economic development. Design/methodology/approach Data are collected through semi-structured interviews and Ca’ Foscari University’s strategic plan. Secundo et al.’s (2016) collective intelligence framework is used to analyse the data. Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000, pp. 19-20) critical management tasks – insight, critique and transformative redefinition – are adopted to frame and discuss the results. Findings On the assumption that a university is a collective intelligence system, the findings demonstrate that IC management needs to change to incorporate an ecosystem perspective, reflecting the fourth stage of IC research. The IC management at the university incorporates its core goal (what), the collective involvement of internal and external stakeholders to achieve the goal (who), the motivations behind the achievement of the goal (why) and, finally, the processes activated inside the university (how) and indicators to assess value creation. Research limitations/implications A new perspective for managing IC in universities that adopts a collective intelligence approach is further developed. Contributions to the fourth stage of IC research – IC in an ecosystem – are highlighted that expand the concept of IC value creation beyond universities into wider society. Practical implications Two key consequences of this case study are that more stakeholders have become involved in IC management and that IC management requires critical rethinking, given the universities’ evolving role. Originality/value This paper brings together issues that are usually dealt with in separate domains of the literature: IC management and collective intelligence in the university setting.

The role of national intellectual capital in the digital transformation of EU countries. Another digital divide?

“…The most recent studies of the evolution of IC point out a taxonomy based on four stages of IC development (Roos and O'Connor, 2015;Pedro, Leitao, and Alves 2018;Borin and Donato, 2015;Secundo et al, 2018;Stahle and Bounfour, 2008) (Warner and Wäger, 2019;Nambisan at al., 2019). In entrepreneurship literature this is mostly celebrated for facilitating entrepreneurial opportunity, new business models, innovations and value creation (Nambisan at al., 2019) but also receive many critics for "platformisation" of society with many negative consequences (van Dijck et al, 2018;Srnicek, 2016).…”

The Evaluation of Universities’ Third Mission and Intellectual Capital: Theoretical Analysis and Application to Italy

“…Future research should focus on the importance of engaging several categories of stakeholders in carrying out the activities of the university: As highlighted by Secundo et al [123], collective intelligence is a key element in considerations on third mission, thus, further research should be devoted to the role of universities in supporting growth and innovation within society. A systematization of different crowdsourcing approaches adopted in universities could also be useful in order to enrich the elaborations on third mission and to further the engagement of various stakeholders.…”

Intellectual capital in education

“…Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research: a critical case study in university settings This paper by Secundo et al (2018) also builds on investigating the third mission of universities using a case study of Ca' Foscari University of Venice. Using Secundo et al's (2016) collective intelligence framework, the research highlights how the university incorporates its core goal (what) with the collective involvement of stakeholders (who), and its motivations behind achieving goals (why) with the processes inside the university (how) to demonstrate the indicators that measure value creation.…”

“…The practical implications reflect how more stakeholders are involved in IC management and that IC management requires a critical rethinking given the evolving role of universities. Secundo et al (2018) bring together issues that are usually dealt with in separate domains of the literature: IC management and collective intelligence in the university setting.…”