Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordache as well as on <strong>the</strong> links between <strong>the</strong>m. From our perspective, we would state that intellectual capital is a strong integrator within <strong>the</strong> learning organization. The organization’s intellectual capital supports its employees’ orientation to simultaneously collaborate and engage to sustain <strong>the</strong> achievement <strong>of</strong> objectives in business. The force comes out <strong>of</strong> a trust relationship based on ethics and reciprocity <strong>of</strong> help among members, as well as on a strong team felling fed within <strong>the</strong> organization. These are <strong>the</strong> company’s fundaments, values and vision, on <strong>the</strong> primary level or shared vision and team learning on a fur<strong>the</strong>r level. The matter is <strong>of</strong> choosing <strong>the</strong> right perspective: ei<strong>the</strong>r regarding intellectual capital as a stock or as a flow. It is not an easy task to perceive <strong>the</strong> dynamics <strong>of</strong> reality it is something that needs a lot <strong>of</strong> learning, practice and a special kit. Our research led us to <strong>the</strong> answer that a mature learning organization represents that kit. The full kit, to which intellectual capital relates, contains – <strong>the</strong> personal mastery, <strong>the</strong> mental models, <strong>the</strong> shared vision, <strong>the</strong> team learning and <strong>the</strong> system’s thinking. Intellectual capital needs <strong>the</strong> discipline <strong>of</strong> personal mastery because you can’t make use <strong>of</strong> something if you don’t concentrate on comprehending its’ dimension, on controlling its’ spreading resonance and finally on fur<strong>the</strong>r modelling its’ trajectory. Personal mastery means to know what you have done and to push fur<strong>the</strong>r your work in order to accomplish what you have been able to, but “have never arrived to” (Senge, 1990). Fur<strong>the</strong>r speaking, having <strong>the</strong> mental models is nei<strong>the</strong>r so difficult nor enough but working through <strong>the</strong>m is a start. This is how <strong>the</strong> organization’s intellectual capital will be always under <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mental models, or name it ‘action’. The shared vision within a learning organization is <strong>the</strong> affair that keeps everyone and everything toge<strong>the</strong>r. To reality, <strong>the</strong> shared vision is not an idea as it is to us, but an impressive force. We believe that intellectual capital will generate <strong>the</strong> competitive advantage through its power as a function <strong>of</strong> factors like how it is perceived and what it is used for. A shared vision keeps <strong>the</strong> team toge<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>of</strong>fers commitment to <strong>the</strong> same cause and this represents ano<strong>the</strong>r strong integrator within <strong>the</strong> learning organization. (Bratianu, 2008) The phrase -team learning- seems much easier to approach but <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept does not reduce itself to <strong>the</strong> translation. Team learning means alignment and not <strong>of</strong> individuals to something but <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group to <strong>the</strong> common something. We approached <strong>the</strong> above concepts under <strong>the</strong> aegis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learning organization and <strong>the</strong>re is one more to discuss. Senge talks about systems thinking as being <strong>the</strong> right option for our perception. He says that <strong>the</strong> right way to solve a problem is to look at <strong>the</strong> whole <strong>of</strong> it and not at parts <strong>of</strong> it. Splitting <strong>the</strong> whole into pieces will degenerate truth and results. We realize that systems thinking is like <strong>the</strong> vital law for <strong>the</strong> learning organization and that it can’t function o<strong>the</strong>rwise. Social capital affects both human capital and knowledge dynamics, increasing <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization. Intellectual capital according to Stewart (1999) is “<strong>the</strong> sum <strong>of</strong> everything inside <strong>the</strong> company that confers intellectual and/or material competitive advantage: knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience that may be used to create wealth.” Intellectual capital regards <strong>the</strong> permanent supervision and evaluation <strong>of</strong> knowledge within an organization, and it is fundamentally different from creation and utilization <strong>of</strong> knowledge (that being knowledge management). Knowledge management works for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> creating intellectual capital to <strong>the</strong> organization. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, knowledge management is <strong>the</strong> basic level <strong>of</strong> forming and developing competitive advantage, consciously and pr<strong>of</strong>essionally. “What a company knows, <strong>the</strong> way that uses what it knows and how fast something new and important can be obtained are part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new perspectives generation processes, <strong>of</strong> developing and using forecast, <strong>of</strong> engaging to competences and action based capacities, and <strong>of</strong> learning from feedback. This is <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital.” (Rastogi, 2000) In 1980, a research regarding <strong>the</strong> performances <strong>of</strong> Japanese companies concluded that <strong>the</strong>re exist major differences <strong>of</strong> performance that may be attributed to non-material actives. A series <strong>of</strong> articles issued at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1980 and in 1990, were explaining <strong>the</strong> use and measurement <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital as a mean to better evaluate <strong>the</strong> company’s value. Today <strong>the</strong> most significant corporations identify intellectual capital as a significant part in determining <strong>the</strong> market value. There is no difficulty <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>the</strong> essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept ‘intellectual capital’ but it’s confusing to correlate its semantic dynamics and variety <strong>of</strong> interpretations in time. It seems that we have to wait for <strong>the</strong> strongest metaphor <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital to show up and make everyone to converge. Maybe when we finish <strong>the</strong> debates about <strong>the</strong> content <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital we shall reach to measure it. The measurement is possible but <strong>the</strong> results are still not reflecting reality, <strong>the</strong>y show distortions. Confronting <strong>the</strong> human capital on individual level and on organizational level we observe <strong>the</strong> similarity. Human capital at individual level consists in knowledge, intelligence and values and 74
Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordache parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se may exist into <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r components <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organizational intellectual capital. The errors may come up when measuring twice <strong>the</strong> same knowledge, or third times <strong>the</strong> intelligence from <strong>the</strong> human capital, <strong>the</strong> social capital and <strong>the</strong> relational capital. The problem is that <strong>the</strong>se three dimensions are associated to <strong>the</strong> dynamic nature <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital but <strong>the</strong> basic structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organizational intellectual capital does not change, which confines understanding and evaluating <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital. 5. The dynamics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital and <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> knowledge dynamics Intellectual capital is a key factor to innovation and represents a competitive advantage in nowadays knowledge based economy. At <strong>the</strong> same time, knowledge dynamics is recognized as a fundamental activity for catching, increasing and supporting intellectual capital within <strong>the</strong> organizations. This means that successful administration <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital is tightly bound to knowledge dynamics processes in <strong>the</strong> organization; in consequence this implies that using knowledge dynamics in practice ensures <strong>the</strong> extraction and development <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital. Nonaka (2000) states that, despite <strong>the</strong> widely recognized importance <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital, even if many times intellectual capital is equalized with knowledge, exists very little applicability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> way organizations achieve to create intellectual capital actually by managing knowledge dynamics. In addition, to Nonaka and Konno (1998) knowledge creation requires a common context <strong>the</strong>y call “ba” (signifying “space”). Ba represents a shared context that may exist in various forms: as physical, virtual, or mental space and explains why knowledge, as opposite to information, can’t be separated from context – this being incorporated in <strong>the</strong> ba. In order to provide <strong>the</strong> appropriate ba, <strong>the</strong>re are some requirements <strong>the</strong> learning organization has to check on. Firstly, <strong>the</strong> learning organization is <strong>the</strong> one that best grants <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> knowledge sharing. Secondly, <strong>the</strong>re are more processes <strong>of</strong> knowledge conversion and each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se processes occurs within a different context, or ba. In a third place, individuals must be included and guided towards <strong>the</strong> appropriate context which finally will lead to knowledge creation. It is easy to observe that, within different departments, knowledge dynamics varies both in processes dimension and prevalence regarding certain types <strong>of</strong> knowledge conversion. Practice observations show that one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems organizations’ confront with when <strong>the</strong>y project and analyze knowledge dynamics are inside any organization and that knowledge is used in different ways depending on <strong>the</strong> department. For example, inside an organization is probable that within <strong>the</strong> departments responsible with production and delivery <strong>of</strong> goods prevails explicit knowledge being enclosed into processes and procedures. On o<strong>the</strong>r behalf, inside <strong>the</strong> same organization, <strong>the</strong> research department is probable to abound <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge. On individual level, intellectual capital represents at least <strong>the</strong> basic issue when a person wants to develop continuously his/her knowledge and increase his/her productivity, through applying each available organizational methodology. The existence <strong>of</strong> knowledge dynamics serves as an organization competence that helps creating <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital at <strong>the</strong> necessary level that might heighten <strong>the</strong> organization’s performance. The link between intellectual capital and knowledge dynamics at individual level may be reduced to a person’s motivation to increase his/her participation in such a way to contribute at building an organization oriented towards learning. On <strong>the</strong> organizational level we picture <strong>the</strong> dynamic processes on <strong>the</strong> vertical axis contributing to transform individuals’ assets into organizational, and on <strong>the</strong> horizontal axis <strong>the</strong>y reflect <strong>the</strong> progressive knowledge transformation into action. (Bratianu, 2008) 6. Conclusions We hope that we have convinced you about <strong>the</strong> righteousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approach as we have been proving <strong>the</strong> two concepts interconnectivity and granted each one’s merits regarding evolution. In our opinion <strong>the</strong> learning organization concentrates on employees and this will undisputedly lead to increase skills and capacities, to improve methods and tools <strong>of</strong> work and to discover new channels and paths <strong>of</strong> correlating things. Our conviction is that all <strong>the</strong>se may be achieved within <strong>the</strong> learning organization throughout <strong>the</strong> managing <strong>of</strong> knowledge dynamics, and <strong>of</strong> course that intellectual capital can’t be removed from <strong>the</strong> equation. In order to form a working mechanism <strong>of</strong> knowledge dynamics and intellectual capital we have to comprehend <strong>the</strong>ir specific “personalities” and preview <strong>the</strong>ir processing toge<strong>the</strong>r. O<strong>the</strong>rwise, such segregation limits <strong>the</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> knowledge as a valuable resource for a company’s growth and development. Learning invariably needs to be treated as an endogenous factor in <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> 75
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings <stron
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Paper Title Author(s) Page
Page 5 and 6:
Paper Title Author(s) Page No. Hier
Page 7 and 8:
Preface These proceedings represent
Page 9 and 10:
educating through ‘hands on’ co
Page 11 and 12:
Ibrahim Elbeltagi is a Senior lectu
Page 13 and 14:
Theodora Ngosi has a PhD in Compute
Page 15:
José Vale is an invited assistant
Page 19 and 20:
Social Knowledge: Are you Ready? 1
Page 21 and 22:
John Girard don’t know.” (Benne
Page 23 and 24:
John Girard The real question becom
Page 25 and 26:
John Girard our belief that many le
Page 27 and 28:
John Girard organizations to gain k
Page 29 and 30:
Intellectual Capital Accounting - H
Page 31:
Academic Research Papers 15
Page 34 and 35:
Khodayar Abili and Mahyar Abili The
Page 36 and 37:
Khodayar Abili and Mahyar Abili Nah
Page 38 and 39:
Khodayar Abili and Mahyar Abili Tim
Page 40 and 41: Knowledge Transfer in Romanian Univ
Page 42 and 43: Simona Agoston et al. Table 1: Know
Page 44 and 45: Simona Agoston et al. homoscedastic
Page 46 and 47: Simona Agoston et al. included in <
Page 48 and 49: A Modeling Approach to Intellectual
Page 50 and 51: Eckhard Ammann (referring to <stron
Page 52 and 53: Eckhard Ammann Figure 2: The IC spa
Page 54 and 55: Eckhard Ammann section 2. They are
Page 56 and 57: Eckhard Ammann From an overall pers
Page 58 and 59: Sorin Anagnoste and Gabriela Dumitr
Page 70 and 71: Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon T
Page 72 and 73: Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon
Page 74 and 75: Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon B
Page 76 and 77: Gabriela Atanasiu and Florin Leon a
Page 78 and 79: Developing and Implementing Strateg
Page 80 and 81: 2. Technology, faculty, and staff B
Page 82 and 83: Learning programs Individual poten
Page 84 and 85: Bob Barrett facts with the<
Page 86 and 87: Intellectual Capital Dynamics withi
Page 88 and 89: Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordac
Page 92 and 93: Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordac
Page 94 and 95: Education and Training Practice Str
Page 96 and 97: Andrea Bencsik et al. We wanted to
Page 98 and 99: Andrea Bencsik et al. In this sampl
Page 100 and 101: Table 4: Types of
Page 102 and 103: References Andrea Bencsik et al. An
Page 104 and 105: Ayşen Berberoğlu and Emine Ünar
Page 106 and 107: Ayşen Berberoğlu and Emine Ünar
Page 108 and 109: Table 7: Descriptive statistics Ay
Page 110 and 111: Knowledge Dynamics Modeling Using A
Page 112 and 113: Constantin Bratianu et al. will hav
Page 114 and 115: Constantin Bratianu et al. 5. a) Gi
Page 116 and 117: Constantin Bratianu et al. 5. Data
Page 118 and 119: Constantin Bratianu et al. Nissen,
Page 120 and 121: 2. Technology and infrastructure Sh
Page 122 and 123: Sheryl Buckley and Apostolos Gianna
Page 130 and 131: Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles t
Page 132 and 133: Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles f
Page 134 and 135: Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles l
Page 136 and 137: Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles i
Page 138 and 139: Donley Carrington and Mike Tayles G
Page 140 and 141:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney on a more
Page 142 and 143:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney Taking <s
Page 144 and 145:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney “For ex
Page 146 and 147:
John Dumay and Jim Rooney Mouritsen
Page 148 and 149:
Marziye Ehrami et al. 1. Creation
Page 150 and 151:
Marziye Ehrami et al. Note: In 2005
Page 152 and 153:
Earnings Quality and Othe</
Page 154 and 155:
Magdi El-Bannany resource-based per
Page 156 and 157:
Magdi El-Bannany Based on this argu
Page 158 and 159:
Magdi El-Bannany Table 2: Descripti
Page 160 and 161:
Magdi El-Bannany variable equal to
Page 162 and 163:
Magdi El-Bannany Edvinsson, L. & Ma
Page 164 and 165:
Ahmed Elsetouhi and Ibrahim Elbelta
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Albrecht Fritzsche and Rebecca Geig
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Table 4: Applicability of</
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
S&P 500 Market Cap ($ billions) 14,
Page 184 and 185:
Tatiana Garanina and Yana Pavlova T
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Tatiana Garanina and Yana Pavlova I
Page 192 and 193:
Impact of Investme
Page 194 and 195:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. 2003;
Page 196 and 197:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. 4.2 P
Page 198 and 199:
Table 7: Goodness of</stron
Page 200 and 201:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. reaso
Page 202 and 203:
Lidia García-Zambrano et al. Rodri
Page 204 and 205:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. co
Page 206 and 207:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. NI
Page 208 and 209:
EI c k i 1 w PC i ic Víctor Raúl
Page 210 and 211:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. Ta
Page 212 and 213:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. Co
Page 214 and 215:
Víctor Raúl López Ruiz et al. At
Page 216 and 217:
Maria de Lourdes Machado and Odíli
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Intellectual Capital and Corporate
Page 224 and 225:
Agnes Maciocha when objects in a da
Page 226 and 227:
Agnes Maciocha 4. Presentation <str
Page 228 and 229:
Agnes Maciocha while in the
Page 230 and 231:
Agnes Maciocha Choong K., “Intell
Page 232 and 233:
The Influence of H
Page 234 and 235:
Anca Mândruleanu From the<
Page 236 and 237:
Anca Mândruleanu In Table 2, <stro
Page 238 and 239:
Eliciting Tacit Knowledge From a Do
Page 240 and 241:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon MM
Page 242 and 243:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon re
Page 244 and 245:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon ar
Page 246 and 247:
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon Th
Page 248 and 249:
Maurizio Massaro et al. crucial fac
Page 250 and 251:
Maurizio Massaro et al. exclusive (
Page 252 and 253:
Maurizio Massaro et al. autonomy <s
Page 254 and 255:
Maurizio Massaro et al. Chennal (20
Page 256 and 257:
Intellectual Capital Management: Ca
Page 258 and 259:
Florinda Matos et al. These models
Page 260 and 261:
Complaints System dos clients New
Page 262 and 263:
Florinda Matos et al. Finally, <str
Page 264 and 265:
Florinda Matos et al. The training
Page 266 and 267:
Florinda Matos et al. 47. Opinion
Page 268 and 269:
Florinda Matos et al. In th
Page 270 and 271:
Florinda Matos et al. The Quadrant
Page 272 and 273:
Florinda Matos et al. Integrated te
Page 274 and 275:
Florinda Matos et al. The networks
Page 276 and 277:
Knowledge Management for Knowledge
Page 278 and 279:
3. Our research Ludmila Mládková
Page 280 and 281:
Ludmila Mládková organizational s
Page 282 and 283:
Ludmila Mládková mentioned only b
Page 284 and 285:
Applying the VAIC
Page 286 and 287:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova pro
Page 288 and 289:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova 2.
Page 290 and 291:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova Let
Page 292 and 293:
Maria Molodchik and Anna Bykova The
Page 294 and 295:
Perspectives on the</strong
Page 296 and 297:
Maria Cristina Morariu as we consid
Page 298 and 299:
Maria Cristina Morariu Tobin’s q
Page 300 and 301:
Maria Cristina Morariu for determin
Page 302 and 303:
The Structural Model of</st
Page 304 and 305:
Fattah Nazem Ackerley (2006) reveal
Page 306 and 307:
Fattah Nazem The research instrumen
Page 308 and 309:
Fattah Nazem intellectual capital m
Page 310 and 311:
Fattah Nazem Johnson, M.J. (1986) T
Page 312 and 313:
Andrei Stefan Nestian organization.
Page 314 and 315:
Andrei Stefan Nestian Chaordic syst
Page 316 and 317:
Andrei Stefan Nestian environment,
Page 318 and 319:
Increasing Knowledge Management Mat
Page 320 and 321:
Theodora Ngosi et al. 2.2 Dominatin
Page 322 and 323:
Theodora Ngosi et al. Figure 1: Del
Page 324 and 325:
Theodora Ngosi et al. IT systems, a
Page 326 and 327:
5. Discussion and summary Theodora
Page 328 and 329:
Theodora Ngosi et al. Weill, P., an
Page 330 and 331:
Bongani Ngwenya late adopters respo
Page 332 and 333:
Bongani Ngwenya This paper extends
Page 334 and 335:
Bongani Ngwenya argument, t
Page 336 and 337:
Bongani Ngwenya DiMaggio, P. J., an
Page 338 and 339:
The Quality of Kno
Page 340 and 341:
5.2 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8 Compete
Page 342 and 343:
Corina Pelau et al. In order to imp
Page 344 and 345:
Hierarchy and Tacit Knowledge in <s
Page 346 and 347:
Ulrica Pettersson and James Nyce in
Page 348 and 349:
Ulrica Pettersson and James Nyce mi
Page 350 and 351:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden time
Page 352 and 353:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden futu
Page 354 and 355:
5. Commonalities of</strong
Page 356 and 357:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden <str
Page 358 and 359:
Katja Pook and Campbell Warden Lazl
Page 360 and 361:
Nicolae Al. Pop et al. satisfaction
Page 362 and 363:
Nicolae Al. Pop et al. the<
Page 364 and 365:
Nicolae Al. Pop et al. satisfaction
Page 366 and 367:
Knowledge Cities: A Portuguese Case
Page 368 and 369:
Katia Rodrigues and Eduardo Tomé
Page 370 and 371:
3. The empirical study 3.1 Methodol
Page 372 and 373:
Table 3: Smart cities - application
Page 374 and 375:
4.3 Suggestions to future work Kati
Page 376 and 377:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti 2. Orga
Page 378 and 379:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti based o
Page 380 and 381:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti Governa
Page 382 and 383:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti Therefo
Page 384 and 385:
Anna Romiti and Daria Sarti Valkoka
Page 386 and 387:
Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar planne
Page 388 and 389:
2.1 Study measures Kent Rondeau and
Page 390 and 391:
Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar contri
Page 392 and 393:
Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar Our re
Page 394 and 395:
Intellectual Capital and a Firm’s
Page 396 and 397:
Figure 1: Hypothes
Page 398 and 399:
Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al. Norm
Page 400 and 401:
Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al. To s
Page 402 and 403:
Helena Santos-Rodrigues et al. Our
Page 404 and 405:
Factors Influencing the</st
Page 406 and 407:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. 2.3
Page 408 and 409:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. The
Page 410 and 411:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. gro
Page 412 and 413:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. The
Page 414 and 415:
Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al. 11.
Page 416 and 417:
Enhancing IC Formation by Evoking H
Page 418 and 419:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch to portray <s
Page 420 and 421:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch 4. Leaning an
Page 422 and 423:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch We argue in f
Page 424 and 425:
Klaus Bruno Schebesch come
Page 426 and 427:
In Search of key F
Page 428 and 429:
Karen Smits et al. contribution, wi
Page 430 and 431:
Karen Smits et al. Table 1: Correla
Page 432 and 433:
Karen Smits et al. staff feel that
Page 434 and 435:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. This p
Page 436 and 437:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. <stron
Page 438 and 439:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. The qu
Page 440 and 441:
Marta-Christina Suciu et al. This t
Page 442 and 443:
Information and Communication Techn
Page 444 and 445:
Jukka Surakka et al. The participan
Page 446 and 447:
Jukka Surakka et al. people. Commun
Page 448 and 449:
Personal Knowledge Management (PKM)
Page 450 and 451:
Marzena Świgoń provide th
Page 452 and 453:
Marzena Świgoń (number and type <
Page 454 and 455:
Marzena Świgoń measure self-perce
Page 456 and 457:
Eduardo Tomé what we consider to b
Page 458 and 459:
Eduardo Tomé IC. The intervention
Page 460 and 461:
Eduardo Tomé In the</stro
Page 462 and 463:
Eduardo Tomé to stress that <stron
Page 464 and 465:
Eleni Magdalini Vasileiadou et al.
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470 and 471:
Page 472 and 473:
Page 474 and 475:
Page 476 and 477:
Page 478 and 479:
José María Viedma Marti products
Page 480 and 481:
Sustainable competitive advantage T
Page 482 and 483:
José María Viedma Marti knowledge
Page 484 and 485:
José María Viedma Marti pr<strong
Page 486 and 487:
José María Viedma Marti All <stro
Page 488 and 489:
ICBS I CBS José María Viedma Mart
Page 490 and 491:
José María Viedma Marti Sullivan,
Page 492 and 493:
2. Balanced scorecard framework Ang
Page 494 and 495:
Angelos Vouldis and Angelica Kokkin
Page 496 and 497:
Unclear benefits of</strong
Page 498 and 499:
Angelos Vouldis and Angelica Kokkin
Page 500 and 501:
9. Discussion and conclusions Angel
Page 502 and 503:
The Global Position of</str
Page 504 and 505:
Piotr Wisniewski safeguarding IC vi
Page 506 and 507:
Piotr Wisniewski Figure 2: Ten larg
Page 508 and 509:
Piotr Wisniewski suspected
Page 510 and 511:
Piotr Wisniewski 2) Slow growth in
Page 512 and 513:
Piotr Wisniewski US 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.3
Page 514 and 515:
498
Page 516 and 517:
500
Page 518 and 519:
2. Hypothesis deve
Page 520 and 521:
3.2 Control variables Deborah Brans
Page 522 and 523:
Deborah Branswijck and Patricia Eve
Page 524 and 525:
Deborah Branswijck and Patricia Eve
Page 526 and 527:
Korosh Gholami et al. Durkheim beli
Page 528 and 529:
Korosh Gholami et al. The effect <s
Page 530 and 531:
Measure the Unmeas
Page 532 and 533:
Knowledge Capital 5. Efforts for de
Page 534 and 535:
Exclusive use of L
Page 536 and 537:
Emmanouil Gkinoglou from th
Page 538 and 539:
Project Assets Need for synergies Q
Page 540 and 541:
Table 5: Sustainability checklist E
Page 542 and 543:
Emmanouil Gkinoglou The next challe
Page 544 and 545:
Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth generat
Page 546 and 547:
Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth Never<s
Page 548 and 549:
Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth <strong
Page 550 and 551:
Ad 2 Structure of
Page 552 and 553:
Kai Mertins and Ronald Orth Hauff,
Page 554 and 555:
Maria Simonova “Concept o
Page 556 and 557:
Maria Simonova The concept regardin
Page 558 and 559:
Maria Simonova Becker, G. S. (1983)
Page 560 and 561:
2. The aim of appl
Page 562 and 563:
Nellija Titova W+I+DP+D+T+M+R (equa
Page 564 and 565:
Nellija Titova performing better. I
Page 566 and 567:
5. Conclusions and furthe</
Page 568 and 569:
Nellija Titova Annex 2: Summary on
Page 570 and 571:
Meaning in the tab
Page 572 and 573:
Krishanthi Ganga Vithana et al. for
Page 574 and 575:
Krishanthi Ganga Vithana et al. sti
Page 576 and 577:
5. Conclusion Krishanthi Ganga Vith
Page 578 and 579:
562
Page 580 and 581:
564
Page 582 and 583:
The Tobing Knowledge Management Arc
Page 584 and 585:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. user, know
Page 586 and 587:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. people con
Page 588 and 589:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. influence
Page 590 and 591:
Develop KM Strategy Description Dev
Page 592 and 593:
Paul Lumbantobing et al. In <strong
Page 594 and 595:
Yuli Purwanti et al. Figure 1: Imag
Page 596 and 597:
Yuli Purwanti et al. Table below is
Page 598 and 599:
582
Page 600 and 601:
584
Page 602 and 603:
Nargiza Abdullaeva and Campbell War
Page 604 and 605:
Page 606 and 607:
Page 608 and 609:
Andreea Feraru and Nicoleta Ciucesc
Page 610 and 611:
Page 612 and 613:
Page 614 and 615:
Roxana Mironescu This could be <str
Page 616 and 617:
Roxana Mironescu Daft, R.L. (2002)
Page 618 and 619:
Paloma Sánchez and Oihana Basilio
Page 620 and 621:
Evaluating Intellectual Capital Usi
Page 622 and 623:
Table 1. CRS input efficiency score
Page 624 and 625:
Stelian Stancu and Anca Domnica Lup
Page 626 and 627:
José Vale et al. However, it is im
Page 628:
José Vale et al. Pöyhönen, A. an
show all

Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?