Search results

Intellectual capital theory and practice predominantly focus on measuring and managing intangible assets. However, if one wants to balance the intellectual capital books, one should recognise both intellectual assets and intellectual liabilities. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present a theoretical framework for measuring intellectual liabilities.

Identifying intangible liabilities is identifying the risk of the decline and fall of organisations. One of the first extensive studies related to the causes of decline and fall is Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It seems as if the main lessons that were drawn from the study are also applicable to today's business environment. Therefore, the framework that is developed here is based not only on intellectual capital literature, but also on Gibbon's study into the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The findings are combined in a framework for measuring intellectual liabilities. The main distinction within the proposed framework is the distinction between internal and external liabilities. Internal liabilities refer to the causes of deterioration that arise from the sources of value creation within the organisation. External liabilities refer to the causes of deterioration that come from outside and are beyond the control of the organisation.

The article explores a relatively new topic (intellectual liabilities) from a perspective (historical sciences) that is rarely used in management science.

The purpose of this article is to report progress of the development of a method that makes sense of knowledge productivity, in order to be able to give direction to knowledge management initiatives.

The development and testing of the method are based on the paradigm of design science. In order to increase the objectivity of the research findings, and in order to test the transferability of the method, this article suggests a methodology for beta testing.

Based on experiences within this research, the concept of beta testing seems to fit design science research very well. Moreover, applying this concept within this research resulted in valuable findings for further development of the method.

This is the first article that explicitly applies the concept of beta testing to the process of developing solution concepts. This article contributes to the further operationalization of the relatively new concept of knowledge productivity. From a methodological point of view, this article aims to contribute to the paradigm of design sciences in general, and the concept of beta testing in particular.

For better mapping the path of intellectual capital (IC) research, the purpose of this paper is to selectively review empirical studies of IC published, and identify theories, components and three dimensions of analysis: national IC (NIC), regional IC (RIC) and organizational IC (OIC).

The systematic literature review (SLR) subject to analysis is based on empirical studies made between 1960 and 2016, and focuses on three dimensions of analysis: NIC, RIC and OIC. Four research questions were designed, using the following databases, namely, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, for data collection purposes.

The SLR unveils a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis and provides some recommendations for future studies of NIC, RIC and OIC, by outlining the need for clear definitions of components and measures of IC and identifying strengths, limitations and future research avenues.

In order to fill the gap found in the literature and the non-existence of a study clarifying the multiple dimensions of analysis of IC, this SLR makes a twofold, original contribution to the literature on management: providing an SLR of the main empirical studies dealing with different units of analysis; and identifying a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis.