Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Paloma Sánchez and Oihana Basilio
and <strong>the</strong> allocation <strong>of</strong> decision-making rights (Grant 1996: 110). Following <strong>the</strong>ir example, our model
aims to assess <strong>the</strong> core resources, capabilities and routines that both enable and hamper innovation
in <strong>the</strong> company.
For that purpose, we aim to answer <strong>the</strong> following questions: Which IC resources and activities
increase/decrease <strong>the</strong> company’s innovative capacity? How does <strong>the</strong> innovative capacity building
effort reflect on effective innovation and o<strong>the</strong>r results? We hypo<strong>the</strong>size that: (h1) KM and ICM
positively affect innovation capacity, (h2) KIBS need a specific Innovation Capacity Evaluation Model
(ICEM), (h3) innovation capacity building efforts are reflected in effective innovation and o<strong>the</strong>r
financial and non-financial results, and (h4) some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> introduced organizational innovations (e.g.
new ICTs or Human Resource Management practices) may lead to unintended and undesirable
effects on employees.
3. Methodology
Within <strong>the</strong> long-term research project (2-3 years), both qualitative and quantitative research methods
are used:
First: Literature related to <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> IC and KM on innovation, services innovation and innovation
capacity building has been reviewed, identifying <strong>the</strong> main intangible and knowledge resources that
affect innovative capacity.
Second: Supported on <strong>the</strong> literature, a first Model has been elaborated and a semi-structured
questionnaire for interviews has been designed to provide qualitative and some quantitative
information about intangibles related to innovation. This questionnaire is partly based on <strong>the</strong>
methodology applied by Hull et al. 2000 to manufacturing, in which he analyzed five groups <strong>of</strong> KM
practices (R&D management process, mapping <strong>of</strong> knowledge relationships, human resource
management, management <strong>of</strong> Intellectual Property, and R&D Information Technology management)
in companies with sophisticated units for innovation, i.e. R&D departments. We have modified and
adapted <strong>the</strong>ir model to <strong>the</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> services and <strong>the</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> our project. The most
important changes are:
New sections, to evaluate a) <strong>the</strong> innovation strategy and <strong>the</strong> obtained innovative results, and b)
<strong>the</strong> unintended and undesirable effects that <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> KM practices for innovation and
<strong>the</strong> innovation per se can have on employees (e.g. work intensification, decrease <strong>of</strong> well-being).
Inclusion <strong>of</strong> variables such us trust, leadership, organizational structure, and culture, which have
been related to innovation (Merx-Chermin and Nijh<strong>of</strong>. 2005).
The focus on <strong>the</strong> R&D department as <strong>the</strong> source <strong>of</strong> innovation has been substituted by a focus on
both internal and external sources (e.g. acquisition <strong>of</strong> technology and cooperation), because
many service companies do not have such department.
Third: We are applying <strong>the</strong> model to a large firm supplying services to different areas, by conducting
structured interviews with a broad range <strong>of</strong> employees, and complementing it with documentary
analysis. 22 interviews have been already made and ano<strong>the</strong>r 20 to 30 will follow.
Fourth: The result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviews will be tested by a large survey that will allow to: a) validate <strong>the</strong>
correlation <strong>of</strong> selected variables with innovation, b) evaluate <strong>the</strong> current innovation capacity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
company and detect <strong>the</strong> gap with <strong>the</strong> intended one, and c) assess <strong>the</strong> effective innovation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
company and its effects on o<strong>the</strong>r results.
Fifth: After analyzing <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviews and survey, <strong>the</strong> Model and <strong>the</strong> questionnaire will be
revisited and applied to o<strong>the</strong>r KIBS companies.
4. Interim results and limitations
The initial interviews have allowed us to detect <strong>the</strong> importance that employees give to each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
analyzed issues, for <strong>the</strong> innovation in <strong>the</strong> company, and <strong>the</strong>ir level <strong>of</strong> satisfaction with <strong>the</strong> current
situation (Likert skale: from 1 to 6). All <strong>the</strong> variables have been rated as being <strong>of</strong> very high importance
(mode: 5 or 6) and satisfaction is also generally high (rarely lower than 4). The qualitative part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
questionnaire, based in interviewees’ commentaries, has allowed us to detect strengths and
weaknesses for <strong>the</strong> analyzed variables, and some uncoherences between existing formal initiatives
and <strong>the</strong>ir implementation (Table 1).
602