Search results

The aim of the paper is to provide some guidelines for using and not using knowledge-based strategies (KS) and for understanding the sustainability of such kinds of strategy. The paper proposes an accounting-based framework that can be used for this aim. The meaning of the guidelines is illustrated with reference to a specific case of a company that implements a KS: the Italian Loccioni Group. The work continues and develops a research already started by the same authors (Iazzolino and Laise, 2013, 2016; Iazzolino et al., 2014).

Building on previous works by the same authors (Iazzolino and Laise, 2013, 2016; Iazzolino et al., 2014), the proposed framework starts from the analysis of the value added (VA) created by the firm. To characterize a KS, the VA and its components are analyzed. To evaluate the sustainability of a strategy (from the economic and social point of view), the time trend of the VA and its composition are also analyzed. The research is theoretical and empirical: a case study has been carried out to apply the framework. Specific key performance indicators were identified to describe the context analyzed.

From a theoretical point of view, an inter-theory relationship (not existing in the literature) between P. Drucker’s approach of economic/social sustainable strategies (ESS) based on knowledge and Pulic’s theory of human capital efficiency (HCE) has been constructed. From results of application of the framework on the case study, it emerges that the Loccioni Group implements a KS. It can be considered a “win-win” strategy.

The case study (Loccioni Group) is described to highlight that an ESS is achievable. The case study has to be understood as the description of a best practice (a benchmark) and not as a statistical test of hypothesis (a theory test). The description of the case is useful to show that companies which adopt KS are not a utopia. There are concrete examples that show that it is possible to implement such strategies. In other words, the set of companies that adopt a ESS is not “empty”.

Managers underestimate the importance of a performance measurement that takes into account advantages in terms of intangibles. The approach analyzed in this paper makes it possible to highlight the effects of sustainable strategies based on knowledge investments oriented toward the stakeholder value theory and corporate social responsibility.

The main purpose of this paper is the construction of an inter-theory relationship (not existing in the literature) between P. Drucker’s approach of ESS based on knowledge and Pulic’s theory of HCE. The existence of such a relation, in the authors’ opinion, is necessary to provide a theoretical foundation of an accounting framework useful for evaluating KS and that a KS (in Drucker’s sense) is adopted when it creates value for all the stakeholders. That is, it is adopted when it has a high VA (in Pulic’s sense).

The purpose of this paper is to propose and discuss, from both a theoretical and empirical point of view, a methodology for measuring the productivity of knowledge workers, then giving a contribution to the question launched by P. Drucker at the end of last millennium. An application of the method on a real case of a knowledge-based firm is shown.

The paper is both theoretical and empirical. At first, building also on Pulic’s theory of human capital efficiency (HCE) and on previous works by the same authors of this paper, a deep theoretical analysis is proposed. After, the explicit calculation of the knowledge worker productivity in a real case of a knowledge-based young firm has been carried out.

From a theoretical point of view, an inter-theory relationship between Drucker’s approach of sustainable strategies based on knowledge and the theory of HCE, mostly attributable to Pulic, has been constructed. From results of the application on the case study, it emerges that the calculation of the productivity of knowledge workers can be achieved and furthermore the result of the calculation can be the basis for the policy of rewarding within the firm.

The proposed methodology can support the s.c. knowledge-based firms to calculate the productivity of employees, a very practical problem for such kind of firms. Furthermore, the calculation of knowledge worker productivity is the basis for implementing a policy of rewarding employees.

The originality of the paper is to provide a practical methodology useful to calculate knowledge worker productivity. To do so, the link between Drucker’s and Pulic’s theories has been deeply analyzed and an inter-theory relationship has been constructed. The existence of such a relation, in the authors’ opinion, is necessary to provide a theoretical foundation for the methodology proposed.

The purpose of this paper is to address the issue of knowledge visualization and its connection with performance measurement from an epistemological point of view, considering quantification and measurement not just as technical questions but showing their relevant implications on the management decision-making of knowledge-based organizations.

This study proposes a theoretical contribution that combines two lines of research for identifying the three main meta-choices problems that arise in the multidimensional benchmarking of knowledge-based organizations. The first is the meta-choice problem related to the choice of the algorithm used (Iazzolino et al., 2012; Laise et al., 2015; Daraio, 2017a). The second refers to the choice of the variables to be included in the model (Daraio, 2017a). The third concerns the choice of the data on which the analyses are carried out (Daraio, 2017a).

The authors show the interplay existing among the three meta-choices in multidimensional benchmarking, considering as key performance indicators intellectual capital, including Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relational Capital, and performances, evaluated in financial and non-financial terms. This study provides an empirical analysis on Italian Universities, comparing the ranking distributions obtained by several efficiency and multi-criteria methods.

This study demonstrates the difficulties of the “implementation problem” in performance measurement, related to the subjectivity of results of the evaluation process when there are many evaluation criteria, and proposes the adoption of the technologies of humility related to the awareness that we can only achieve “satisficing” results.

This paper aims to propose an integrated methodology for evaluating academic spin-offs (ASOs) for supporting both the development phase and performance evaluation. The ASOs have peculiar characteristics compared to other start-up companies and the debate on their evaluation is still open.

The proposed methodology, adopting a lean approach, faces the typical problems that characterize the growth of an ASO: the excessive attention to the technological aspects with respect to the commercial and managerial ones; and the need for evaluation systems that try to evaluate all risk areas and to highlight any misalignment. The methodology was built also starting from the results of an Erasmus + research project, co-funded by the European Commission, called spin-off lean acceleration.

The methodology proposes to monitor the main risk areas (market, technological, implementation, governance and financial). For each of these areas, at first, a framework and a checklist are proposed for supporting the qualitative assessment of the potential of each areas. In the second part, a set of metrics for monitoring the performances and to understand if the spinoff is developing in the right direction is proposed. Moreover, the methodology was applied to the spin-offs at the University of Calabria (Italy), and the paper reports the first results obtained.

A new canvas model (lean acceleration canvas), more specific and suited to the context of ASOs, was developed and tested. A lean approach has been adopted also for understanding the weakness of traditional methods. The proposed methodology could be used by the technology transfer offices in their institutional activity of supporting ASOs.

The purpose of this paper is to place the value creation process within sustainable growth strategies. Building on Drucker (1968, 1999a, b), Pulic (2000, 2004, 2008) and other papers by the same authors (Iazzolino and Laise, 2013) the specific aim of this research is to propose an accounting-based framework able to: distinguish between knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs) and nonknowledge intensive firms (nonKIFs); and investigate the contribution of the two sets of firms (KIFs and nonKIFs) to overall sustainability, from a social point of view, of the economic system.

The paper uses the notion of value added (VA) (Pulic, 2000, 2004, 2008) as the main indicator to measure the value creation in a knowledge economy context. As regard the first point of the framework, the approach is based on the analysis of VA and its components, starting from a reinterpretation of the concept of value added intellectual coefficient made by the same authors of this paper. An empirical analysis based on the composition of VA in ten Italian industries, by using an overall sample of 1,000 firms, has been carried out and is described in the paper. As regards the second point, the paper analyses, from a theoretical point of view, the necessary conditions to set up a sustainable value creation strategy in social terms, using the conceptual categories introduced by Drucker (1968, 1999a, b) and Pulic (2000, 2004, 2008).

From results of the empirical analysis it emerges that: first, in traditional industries the weight of the cost of employees on VA (human capital investments) is less than the other sectors (low human capital intensity). In these sectors the value creation strategy is mainly based on “dead knowledge,” embedded in machines (physical capital); and second, in nontraditional industries (consulting, advertising, research, etc.) the economic value creation is mainly based on “living knowledge,” embedded in human resources (high human capital intensity). In these sectors we have lower productivity of work (VA/human capital) and higher employment.

The framework proposed makes it possible to reduce the risk of myopic valuation of economic performance. Through this methodology it is possible to highlight the effects of sustainable strategies based on knowledge investments oriented toward the stakeholder value theory and corporate social responsibility. The approach can be very useful for top managers and for accountants, as it underlines the importance of the VA income statement and constructs a strong link to the themes of knowledge management.

The originality and the value of this methodological proposal can be appreciated by taking into account that in the literature there is no accounting-based methodology that is able to identify: the knowledge-intensive firms; and the firms that can contribute to overall social sustainability, within the set of all firms.

In a previous paper the authors emphasized the advantages of multicriteria methodologies to evaluate business performance. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the metachoice problem that always arises in a benchmark multicriteria analysis that can be synthesized as follows: “how to choose an algorithm to choose?”

In order to perform a benchmark analysis, a set of criteria must be chosen. In the Balanced Scorecard approach, for example, key performance indicators (KPIs) are grouped in four different perspectives: financial, customer, internal processes and learning and growth. In this paper, the authors focus on multicriteria benchmark analysis applied to KPIs of the financial perspective. The paper considers a set of criteria used in financial statement analysis based on balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement. A case study is described.

The main findings of the paper are when the evaluation of a firm is based on different genuine criteria, a metachoice problem arises: multicriteria ranking algorithms cannot be selected using a multicriteria algorithm; the choice of an algorithm ultimately depends on the subjective preference of the policy maker; and the authors metachoice solution to the benchmarking problem is in accordance with Simon’s satisfacing solution, describing a non-maximizing performance measurement methodology.

The paper provides several practical implications in all cases in which a ranking has to be assigned to a group of firms based on financial performances. More in general the problem is very relevant when a ranking has to be carried out with respect to a set of projects, a set of strategies, a set of organizational units, etc.

The adoption of a set of criteria is certainly an advantage to avoid uni-criterial myopic evaluation. However, this also creates some methodological problems. The paper demonstrates the “relativity” (subjectivity) of results of the evaluation process when there are many evaluation criteria, as in a benchmark context. This is a metachoice problem that cannot be solved by using another multicriteria algorithm.

This study proposes a comparison between Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) and one of the most important performance evaluation methods, the Economic Value Added (EVA), starting from a re-interpretation of the VAIC.

The empirical data were gathered from AMADEUS Bureau van Dijk and consist of 2,596 companies operating in Northern Italy, from six different economic sectors, observed for the year 2011. A correlation analysis was carried out in order to highlight whether there is a relationship between the two concepts of VAIC and EVA.

Results show that EVA and VAIC have no significant relationships; as a matter of fact, EVA is based on financial theory, whereas VAIC is focalised on the assessment of Intellectual Capital Efficiency (ICE).

Managers could be misled due to the fact that they often make decisions by taking into account only financial indicators such as EBIT, EVA, etc. Although methods like EVA have improved modern accounting systems, they do not take into account information linked to ICE. Therefore, these two perspectives can be useful in a context in which firms' performances are measured through multi-criteria methodologies (i.e. Balanced scorecard).

The proposal describes the differences between VAIC and EVA considering these two concepts as not contrasting. In fact, in order to better measure firms' performances, it could be useful to consider VAIC and EVA as an integrated vision in order to develop multi-criteria evaluation systems, rather than consider them separately.

The business performances of firms are measured on a set of indicators (Financial Ratio Analysis Indicators or Balanced Scorecard Key Performance Indicators). Traditional benchmark analysis considers a set of criteria, though it generally synthesizes all the results, taking into consideration only an aggregate performance criterion (reductio ad unum approach). This methodology has many disadvantages, both theoretical and empirical. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the advantages, in terms of greater flexibility and realism, related to the application of a multicriteria methodology.

The paper uses a tutorial approach. An exemplification of an outranking multicriteria methodology (ELECTRE type) is described.

The main findings of the paper can be summarized as: first, the evaluation of a business performance cannot generally be conducted by means of a unique criterion as in the traditional monocriterion benchmark analysis; second, when the evaluation of a firm is based on different genuine criteria, the performance has to be “satisfacing” and not maximizing; and third, the outranking methods are able to provide logically rigorous solutions to the genuine multicriteria benchmarking evaluation problems.

The paper provides practical implications useful for evaluating firm performances in many cases, also when each stakeholder (managers, shareholders, banks, etc.) assigns different “weights” to the decision criteria.

As a multicriteria evaluation is generally incompatible with a profit maximizing approach, the paper proposes a multicriteria performance measure approach that offers Simon's satisfacing solutions. The paper shows that satisfacing solutions to a multicriteria evaluation problem may be rigorously obtained through an outranking methodology (already introduced by other scholars).

The purpose of this paper is to study, mainly from the point of view of methodological accounting principles, the value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC), introduced by Pulic as a measure of intellectual capital efficiency (ICE). More specifically, the aim of the analysis is to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the VAIC, primarily from the accounting theory perspective.

The approach to the study of Pulic's contribution is as follows: first the authors submitted Pulic's methodology to a “conceptual” test, in order to check whether it contradicts any basic accounting principles. Then the results of this methodological test were compared to those obtained by the authors who have criticized Pulic's proposal, in order to check for any concordance or discordance with the literature.

Several authors have discussed the crucial aspects of the VAIC. In this paper the focus is primarily on Andriessen's concerns, since they relate to the theoretical accounting aspects of Pulic's proposal, which is the topic of the paper. First of all, the authors have found that the suggestion of Pulic, centered on the Value Added Income Statement, does not modify or contradict any of the fundamental accounting principles. Therefore the criticisms made by Professor Andriessen should be subject to future research. Furthermore the performance measure proposed by Pulic (VAIC) is not a genuine rival to the traditional methodologies (e.g. the Economic Value Added (EVA)), as instead emerges from Pulic's papers. VAIC and EVA measure different aspects of the performance and therefore may usefully live together in a context in which the performance is measured through multicriteria methodologies, such as the Balanced Scorecard, Skandia Navigator or Intangible Asset Monitor.

The practical implications of the results are: the correct placing of Pulic's contribution into the accounting principles theory; and the manner for using the VAIC methodology in a multicriteria performance evaluation. The authors believe that both aspects have relevant implications for business accounting practice.

The paper shows that almost all of the misunderstandings of the literature debate, regarding Pulic's proposal, arise from a “semantic shift” generated by the fact that Pulic uses the terms human capital and structural capital with a completely different meaning from that of the Skandia Navigator. Authors’ hope is that the study described in the paper will contribute to a better understanding of: the way to calculate and to interpret the efficiency of intellectual capital (IC) in a correct manner; and the role of IC on firm multicriteria performances.