Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Intellectual Capital in a Seaport Context
José Vale 1 , João Ribeiro 2 and Manuel Branco 2
1 Institute <strong>of</strong> Accounting and Administration <strong>of</strong> Porto (ISCAP), Portugal
2 Porto University, Porto, Portugal
josevale@iscap.ipp.pt
joao.ribeiro@fep.up.pt
mcbranco@fep.up.pt
Abstract: This poster, which is <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> an ongoing PhD <strong>the</strong>sis project, illustrates how and why <strong>the</strong>
Intellectual Capital (IC) concept can be applied to a seaport. A seaport can be conceptualized as a cluster
composed by organisations interrelated in a complex and specific network system. In a knowledge-based
economy, where <strong>the</strong> competitiveness <strong>of</strong> an organisation is a consequence <strong>of</strong> its ability to create IC, <strong>the</strong> spatial
proximity can be an important factor because it facilitates interactions between organisations. Traditionally,
literature defends an IC composed by three dimensions: human, structural and relational capital. Also, <strong>the</strong>
interplay between <strong>the</strong>se dimensions is considered an important factor to improve performance and thus
competitiveness. As far as <strong>the</strong> authors are aware, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research in IC has been focused on individual
firms. Although some recent papers examine macro-level organizations, such as regions, none exist on seaports.
In addition, <strong>the</strong>re is a paucity <strong>of</strong> management sciences’ research on to maritime transportation and seaports.
Several research questions are thus pertinent attending to <strong>the</strong> specificity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> context: What are <strong>the</strong> main IC
dimensions in a seaport? How those dimensions relate with each o<strong>the</strong>r? How IC, in its different dimensions, is
created/destroyed within a seaport? Answers to <strong>the</strong>se questions can have important strategic and managerial
implications for <strong>the</strong> seaport and its stakeholders. We consider a case study methodology as an appropriate
approach to answer <strong>the</strong>se questions, given that this methodology is suited for exploratory research and for
dealing with situations in which creativity and innovation prevail. Early insights provided not only by <strong>the</strong> literature
review, but also by two informal interviews, suggest that we can find <strong>the</strong> three “main” dimensions <strong>of</strong> IC within a
seaport context and also two types <strong>of</strong> relational capital: an “internal” and an “external” one. They also suggest
that IC dimensions may be interrelated with each o<strong>the</strong>r within a seaport and that relational capital may be <strong>the</strong>
most important dimension in that particular context.
Keywords: Intangible assets, intellectual capital, network, case study, seaport
1. Introduction
Many authors claim that organisations are less dependent on traditional tangible resources (Alwis,
Hlupic and Fitzgerald, 2003), considering intangible resources as <strong>the</strong> most important and required
critical drivers <strong>of</strong> sustainable competitive advantages (Viedma, 2003; Palacios and Galván, 2006).
Thus, <strong>the</strong> new challenge for organisations is <strong>the</strong> ability to drive <strong>the</strong>ir transformation into intelligent
organisations (Schiuma and Lerro, 2008a). For that, organisations should not only rely on its IC but
also on <strong>the</strong> IC <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. Therefore, a seaport, due to its contextual complexity, can provide us with
empirical evidence in order to illustrate how and why <strong>the</strong> Intellectual Capital (IC) concept can be
applied to a cluster composed by organisations interrelated in a complex and specific network system.
2. Literature review
2.1 Intellectual capital dimensions
Tan, Plowman and Hancock (2008) consider that <strong>the</strong>ories on intellectual capital are embedded in two
streams <strong>of</strong> research: <strong>the</strong> strategy stream, which is concerned with knowledge creation, acquisition,
management, diffusion, utilization, capitalization, conversion, transfer, and storage; and <strong>the</strong>
measurement stream, which is concerned with measuring and reporting IC.
Although <strong>the</strong>re have been various and discordant definitions <strong>of</strong> IC, many individuals have, in recent
years, tried to agree on a standard one (Nazari and Herremans, 2007; Tan, Plowman and Hancock,
2008). However, is difficult to achieve a consensus.
Also, <strong>the</strong>re are several models, decomposing IC in different ways. In this case, and although <strong>the</strong> use
<strong>of</strong> different terminology, <strong>the</strong>re has been some consensus regarding <strong>the</strong> IC’s dimensions (Verma and
Dewe, 2008).
Generally, <strong>the</strong> literature defends an IC composed by three dimensions: human capital, structural (or
organisational) capital and relational (or customer) capital (Roslender and Fincham, 2001; Liu, 2007).
609