Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al.
To sum up, <strong>the</strong> three research hypo<strong>the</strong>ses were validated. We can summarily conclude that our study
supports that Intellectual Capital influences <strong>the</strong> innovativeness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company although <strong>the</strong>re are
some nuances worth noting. An important result achieved is that we find a dichotomy between <strong>the</strong>
Innovative Capacity. This dichotomy is very relevant for our finds and conclusions.
5. Conclusion
In this study we found several important contributions for <strong>the</strong>ory. We identify <strong>the</strong>oretical implications <strong>of</strong>
our study, mainly in two subject areas: <strong>the</strong> literature <strong>of</strong> Intellectual Capital and Innovation literature.
For <strong>the</strong> literature <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital, this work produces two major contributions. The first
contribution is that we found that some dimensions <strong>of</strong> Intellectual Capital are relevant for <strong>the</strong>
innovativeness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company.
As <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital is accepted as strategic factors that include resources, skills and capabilities
that act and interact to create value, human capital use to be considered a central element <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
company. Some authors suggest that human capital is <strong>the</strong> central element <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital
(Bontis, 1998; Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen, & Ross, 1999; Bontis & Girardi, 2000; Edvinsson &
Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1998a; Sveiby, 1997). In our study we find that human capital is important
(directly) only for <strong>the</strong> product-process innovativeness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company. As Hayton (2005); that
analyzed a fairly comprehensive literature associated with <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> human capital (between
<strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> senior management) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> companies and <strong>the</strong> respective innovative capacity and
concluded that <strong>the</strong> cognitive resources (Skills) and values <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management team have a significant
influence on <strong>the</strong> company's strategic decisions; we found that <strong>the</strong> innovative attitude (part <strong>of</strong> it
centered on <strong>the</strong> manager attitude) has an important role on <strong>the</strong> product-process innovativeness.
The second contribution is to <strong>the</strong> innovation literature and concerns <strong>the</strong> several innovative capabilities
found in this study. First we saw that <strong>the</strong> Management innovativeness and <strong>the</strong> product-process
innovativeness are differentiated which consequently require different knowledge. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore we
saw that <strong>the</strong> product-process innovativeness are coincident and refer to <strong>the</strong> same phenomenon. We
found that a new product innovation needs a new process, which justifies that <strong>the</strong> product process
innovativeness represents a same capacity. So, <strong>the</strong>re is a need to adjust <strong>the</strong> production process <strong>of</strong> a
product innovation. It means that <strong>the</strong>se two types <strong>of</strong> innovation are intrinsically related. To sum up,
<strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> our study helps close <strong>the</strong> gap between what we know and what we need to know about
<strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> human capital on firm innovativeness and permits to support partly our H1. We didn’t
found a direct relation <strong>of</strong> human capital and management innovativeness.
A final integrative contribution refers to <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> significant differences in <strong>the</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong>
intellectual capital that influence <strong>the</strong> different innovative capacities. This contribution attempts to
answer a common criticism addressed to studies focusing on <strong>the</strong> innovativeness, referring to <strong>the</strong> lack
<strong>of</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interrelationships between different variables within <strong>the</strong> organization (Ravichandran,
2000). Fur<strong>the</strong>r study should be done in two senses: to provide fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence <strong>of</strong> our conclusions
testing our model in different sectors or doing a multi-sector test. Even more, fur<strong>the</strong>r tests <strong>of</strong> our
model, concerning <strong>the</strong> liaisons not found such as <strong>the</strong> relation between human capital and
management innovation should be done. In <strong>the</strong> same line, following <strong>the</strong> proposal <strong>of</strong> Linzalone (2008)
more research should be done on <strong>the</strong> role that capital intellectual play in different stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new
products development process, as little is known about this relationship.
6. Annex: Questionnaire
Human Capital
Generally, employees are limited to perform tasks showing little motivation to change
Our employees have many skills to <strong>the</strong> activities performed
The company did not penalize innovation errors committed by employees
Our highly trained employees are specialized for <strong>the</strong> task or function <strong>the</strong>y perform in <strong>the</strong> company
Our employees are very talented
Our employees are considered <strong>the</strong> best in our industry by training
384