Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a new learning and growth perspective for the balanced scorecard (BSC) that includes more specific measures of integrated thinking and value creation to help improve integrated reporting (<IR>). Practical, relevant definitions of these historically vague concepts may improve intangible asset disclosures (IAD) and increase uptake of the<IR> framework.

The paper is conceptual. The authors use organisational learning to theorise about the learning and growth perspective of the BSC, within the context of the practice of IAD.

Several criticisms of IAD, the<IR>framework and the BSC have acted as barriers to implementing the<IR>framework. The improved version of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective, presented in this paper, addresses those criticisms by redefining the concept of integrated thinking (learning) and more fully connecting that learning to future value creation (growth). The model is designed to be used in tandem with the<IR>framework to operationalise integrated thinking. A new BSC strategy map illustrates how this revised learning and growth perspective interacts with the other three BSC perspectives to create long-term shareholder value through the management and growth of knowledge within an organisation.

Organisational learning is an important source of competitive advantage in the modern knowledge economy. Here, the authors encourage further debate on how to report and disclose information on intangible assets, driven by a new conceptual strategy for organisational learning that fully supports the BSC’s capacity to help integrated thinking and future value creation for the<IR>framework.

From its roots as a performance measurement system, the BSC has become a widely used strategy execution tool. The<IR>framework has struggled to gain traction, but still has value in exploring intangible assets and its disclosure from a systems thinking perspective. The model is designed to bring an explicit understanding of how to improve integrated thinking for the<IR>framework facilitating better measurement, management and reporting of human and structural capital. By doing so, the new model enables a firm to use the BSC to engage with<IR>more effectively, which should also be useful for practitioners given the widespread use of the BSC.

The analysis of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective reveals two dichotomies – one between resources and growth, and another between systems and capability. The revised perspective resolves these dichotomies with clear, forward-focused measures of learning and intangible asset growth, and multiple vertical and horizontal connections between the perspective’s four constructs. The authors demonstrate practical paths to value creation through a range of strategic impacts.

The paper examines ways that Knowledge Management (KM) can demonstrate practical value for organizations. It begins by reviewing the claims made about KM, i.e. the benefits KM can provide to organizations. These claims are compared with traditional firm performance metrics to derive a criterion to measure the value of KM. Seven practical outcomes of KM are then presented as methods to persuade managers to invest in KM. These practical outcomes are then evaluated against the value criterion. The paper is based on empirical evidence from a five year longitudinal study.

This paper is based on a longitudinal change project for a large Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project grant in the period 2008-2013. The Project was a transformational change program which aimed to help make the partner organisation a learning organisation. The partner organisation was a large Australian Government Department, which faced the threat of knowledge loss caused by its ageing workforce. The sample was 118 respondents, mainly engineering and technical workers. A total of 150 respondents were invited to participate in the study which involved an annual survey and attendance at regular training workshops and related activities, with a participation rate of 79 per cent.

This paper provides a checklist from which to evaluate KM in terms of financial and non-financial measures and seven practical outcomes from which to identify the organisational problem which may be addressed by KM. Lead and lag indicators – what needs to be done and what will result – are also provided. Managers may use this framework to identify the value proposition in any KM investment.

The research is based on a single case study in a public sector organization. While the longitudinal nature of the study and the rich data collected offsets this issue, it also presents good opportunities for researchers and practitioners to test the ideas presented in this paper in other industry contexts. The seven practical outcomes also vary in the maturity of the empirical evidence supporting KM ' s impact. Strategic alignment, value management, and psychological contract, in particular, are still under-developed and could be areas for specific further research testing the ideas presented here.

This paper argues that investment decisions regarding KM may benefit from focusing on significant and on-going organisational problems, which will connect KM with firm performance and demonstrate financial and non-financial impact. The seven practical outcomes were evaluated against measurement criteria and against KM ' s claims. Overall, common themes were time and cost, as well as capability growth and performance improvements. Financial impact was mainly found in cost savings. Non-financial impact was found across the seven practical outcomes. It provides management with a checklist to make investment decisions regarding KM.

The decision whether to invest in KM begins with methods used to evaluate any organisational project. Managers must determine first whether necessary funds are available; and then whether the project is worthwhile. The standard method for evaluating a project ' s worth is return on investment (ROI). However, calculating ROI for KM investment is problematic. Unless KM can be proven to directly improve performance in financial terms, managers may struggle to see its ROI. The paper begins by reviewing the claims made about KM, i.e. the benefits KM can provide to organizations. These claims are compared with traditional firm performance metrics to derive a criterion to measure the value of KM.

The purpose of this paper is to address the subjectivity inherent in existing methods of human capital value measurement (HCVM) by proposing a 360‐degree peer review as a method of validating self‐reporting in HCVM surveys.

The case study is based on a survey of a section of the Royal Australian Navy. The sample was 118 respondents, who were mainly engineering and technical workers, and included both civilian and uniform.

The research may be summarised in three main findings. First, it confirms previous research demonstrating that correlations between self‐ and other‐ratings tend to be low. However, while previous research has found that self‐rating tends to be higher than other‐rating, it was found to be the opposite: other‐rating was higher than self‐rating. Second, personality is discounted as an influencing variable in self‐rating of knowledge. Third, there are patterns in the size of the discrepancy by knowledge dimension (i.e. employee capability, employee sustainability) that allow generalisation about the adjustment necessary to find an accurate self‐other rating of knowledge.

The findings are based on a single case study and are therefore an exercise in theory development rather than theory testing.

The 360‐degree peer review rating of knowledge has considerable application. First, use the outcomes in the way 360‐degree feedback has been traditionally used; i.e. identifying training needs assessment, job analysis, performance appraisal, or managerial and leadership development. Second, use it for performance appraisal – given the method's capacity to identify issues at a very finite level: e.g. are you building effective relationships with customers? Third, identify knowledge gaps, at a strategic level, for recruitment and development targets. Finally, in terms of financial decisions investors might be able to compare knowledge scores by organization.

Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have used other‐ratings as a tool for identifying training and development needs. In this paper, other‐ratings have been introduced as a method for validating self‐rating in the measurement of knowledge. The objective was to address one of the weaknesses in existing methods – subjectivity. The solution to this problem was to use three data points – self‐reporting, 360‐degree peer review, and personality ratings – to validate the measurement of individuals’ human capital. This triangulation method aims to introduce objectivity to survey methods, making it a value measurement rather than value assessment.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of Q Methodology for business research, as an alternative technique for accounting researchers.

Q Methodology is an innovative technique that provides quantitative structure to individuals' opinions via factor analysis. The authors present the results of a case study where Q Methodology was used to examine attitudes towards an on‐line wiki, a Technology Encyclopaedia (TE), amongst 35 engineers and technical employees at a manufacturing company. Management wanted to understand whether employees were willing to embrace social conversational technology as a way of sharing knowledge. The aim of the case study is to demonstrate how Q Methodology works in a practical setting. The authors also examine a published journal article to assess how Q Methodology might be used to enhance accounting research.

The results show that Q Methodology may provide advantages in data gathering (less respondent burden), data analysis (deeper insight into respondent sub‐conscious), and results (better respondent “ownership” of organisational problems and solutions). However, it also has weaknesses in terms of managerial application.

A limitation is that the discussion is based on a single case study.

When working with an industry partner, researchers may need to consider a more positivist approach and be prepared to explain context behind the statements.

Q Methodology appears to offer most value as a data gathering technique. It may also be used to capture respondents' subconscious views on a topic. While the limited time involved will be attractive to practitioners, there is also the potential benefit of increasing respondents' awareness and understanding of the topic under investigation (i.e. action research), enhancing change management and other sensitive organizational issues.