Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

John Dumay and Jim Rooney
It is by exploring links through narrative, ra<strong>the</strong>r than discrete measures, that readers <strong>of</strong> IC Statements
can get a sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actions taken by Lands to satisfy customers, outlining its success or failure.
For example, <strong>the</strong> ability to process online requests for Land Title searches within two minutes, with
<strong>the</strong> aim to continue satisfying <strong>the</strong> target, communicates a sense <strong>of</strong> providing a customer satisfying
service, even if it is not explicitly spelt out. Similarly, <strong>the</strong> fact <strong>the</strong>re are 10,000 subscribers to <strong>the</strong>
Crown Lands eNewsletter suggests <strong>the</strong> same outcome.
This is not to diminish <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> communicating <strong>the</strong> IC measures as published. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, it
reaffirms Dumay’s (2008, p. 518) original findings when he showed “… how at Lands <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
narrative became routinized in <strong>the</strong> activities <strong>of</strong> management. Thus narrative was no longer used to
only provide understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IC measures and <strong>the</strong> reasoning behind <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> IC, but to provide
a mechanism that engendered fur<strong>the</strong>r management action and subsequent organisational change”.
The engendering <strong>of</strong> management action, thus mobilizing IC, before <strong>the</strong> need to measure IC is also
supported by Catasús et al. (2007). However, even though Lands considers <strong>the</strong>mselves successful in
managing its IC, Lands is still struggling with <strong>the</strong> desire to measure IC.
The challenge to find appropriate IC measures began early on as identified by <strong>the</strong> DG in a 2005
interview:
“In fact, it’s very easy to write a word essay on Intellectual Capital. It’s much harder to
document it and define it and to quantify it within <strong>the</strong> performance structure <strong>of</strong> an
organisation”.
After five years <strong>the</strong> DG is still searching for IC measures, even though Lands has been successful in
managing IC, as he alludes to in 2010 when reflecting on how to maintain <strong>the</strong> momentum <strong>of</strong> Lands’
success:
“… one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> real challenges is going to be how to keep a strong arrow point in this
subject matter as opposed to it being diffused. […] I think one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> things that will help
in that regard is if <strong>the</strong> strong accountancy framework that we all work under, and <strong>the</strong>
reporting frameworks, can more objectively address true points <strong>of</strong> measurement”.
More specifically <strong>the</strong> DG links success to <strong>the</strong> ability to measure IC as outlined below:
“The need for measurement is inextricably linked to a value proposition and, <strong>the</strong>refore,
knowledge management has to have a value proposition. It starts behind <strong>the</strong> eight ball
simply it’s <strong>the</strong> intangible side, and <strong>the</strong>refore, started with a lack <strong>of</strong> measurement. And
this is where, if <strong>the</strong>re’s a disappointment in this space, globally and generally, it’s still in
<strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> our ability collectively to end up with hard-core metrics. So, I think it’s <strong>the</strong> key
to unlocking this space”.
In contrast, whilst <strong>the</strong> DG was pressuring fur<strong>the</strong>r development <strong>of</strong> IC metrics, a need for both narrative
and numeric reporting was highlighted by <strong>the</strong> reporting manager in 2010:
“I’m not a numbers person, so a narrative is as good to me as a sliding scale or a
financial commitment”.
The same manager also cast doubt on <strong>the</strong> usefulness <strong>of</strong> measuring and whe<strong>the</strong>r or not it resulted in
management action:
“It’s an interesting discussion we have intermittently with <strong>the</strong> Australian Bureau <strong>of</strong>
Statistics. By <strong>the</strong> time you get <strong>the</strong> data and mesh it toge<strong>the</strong>r and present it, taking into
account all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> assumptions that must be made, well what’s <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> thing that
you’re reporting and how do you learn anything from it that you can actually adjust?”
Additionally <strong>the</strong> same manager questions whe<strong>the</strong>r or not a ‘standard’ set <strong>of</strong> measures can be found
for Lands because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> Lands businesses.
“So, it’s important to have a lot <strong>of</strong> different levels and layers <strong>of</strong> input. For us, having an
internal dialogue about what we should be measuring is not that well informed because
we end up with very bespoke business solutions. As to what we should be measuring,
everybody comes back to what <strong>the</strong>y individually want to do”.
The need for a diverse set <strong>of</strong> bespoke measures was confirmed by <strong>the</strong> CIO in 2010. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
IT department <strong>the</strong> metrics <strong>the</strong>y develop internally are different, and are in addition to <strong>the</strong> metrics
contained in <strong>the</strong> annual report:
127