Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Validation a Scale for Measuring <strong>the</strong> Intellectual Capital in
Universities
Fattah Nazem
Department <strong>of</strong> Education, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Roudehen, Iran
nazem@riau.ac.ir
Abstract: The purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present study is to validate a scale for measuring <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital (IC) <strong>of</strong>
universities. The population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study included all <strong>the</strong> staffs who were employed in all branches <strong>of</strong> Islamic
Azad University in Iran (i.e., 420 branches and educational centers). The research sample consisted <strong>of</strong> 996 staffs
randomly selected from 86 branches and educational centers using stratified and cluster random sampling
methods. The research instrument was <strong>the</strong> Bontis’s (1997) intellectual capital questionnaire which consisted <strong>of</strong>
52 items with three underlying constructs <strong>of</strong> human capital, customer capital, and structural capital and Cronbach
Alpha <strong>of</strong> 0.95;The results <strong>of</strong> factor analysis and principal components analysis, using a varimax rotation, showed
that building blocks <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital includes customer capital (Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27,
32, 34, 40, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, and 52), structural capital (Items 1, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 33, 43, 47,
and 48), and human capital (Items 5, 12, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45 and 49). The three underlying factors in
intellectual capital show that <strong>the</strong> scale almost generally covers <strong>the</strong>se factors and <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> its administration,
its validity, and <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> IC in universities determined by <strong>the</strong> scale are generally acceptable. Structural capital
showed <strong>the</strong> highest contribution to <strong>the</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital.
Keywords: Measuring, Intellectual Capital, Factor Analysis, Universities
1. Introduction and purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study
Higher education system is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important and complicated products <strong>of</strong> human
achievements. In recent decades, <strong>the</strong> changes have revolutionized <strong>the</strong> social systems and
organizations; hence, scientific centers, in general, and universities, in particular, are more addressed
to satisfy new expectations.
Regarding <strong>the</strong> key role <strong>of</strong> higher education, Green (1997) explains that higher education provides <strong>the</strong>
technical knowledge and skill that industry requires it in future and <strong>the</strong> fact that governments depend
on this knowledge to have an effective and strategic programming. Because <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>ound changes
which have affected our today's world, <strong>the</strong> universities, even more than ever, have been in <strong>the</strong> focus
<strong>of</strong> prolonged international and social discussions which devote to <strong>the</strong> goals and ideals <strong>of</strong> universities
as well as <strong>the</strong>ir roles in guidance and leadership (Feigenbaum, 1994).
Intellectual Capital is a commodity necessary to guarantee organizational survival and universities’
competitive advantage in <strong>the</strong> complex and competitive world. The growing importance <strong>of</strong> intellectual
capital has its foundations in several studies carried out since <strong>the</strong> 70s, which focused on so-called
invisible assets. The concept <strong>of</strong> “intellectual capital” was advanced by Adam Mueller, Friedrich List
(Kendrick, 1961, p. 105) and referred to technical knowledge, know-how, forms <strong>of</strong> organization and
tangible capital goods. It is <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> investment in <strong>the</strong> discovery and spread <strong>of</strong> productive
knowledge. Among <strong>the</strong> studies about <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital, <strong>the</strong> works <strong>of</strong> Itarni and Roehl (1991) can
be highlight although <strong>the</strong> concept has gained prominence only after <strong>the</strong> works <strong>of</strong> Sveiby (1997) in
Sweden.
New economy imposes new requirements to <strong>the</strong> enterprises. The strategic role <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital
in value creation is widely discussed both on <strong>the</strong>oretical (Bontis, 2001) and empirical (Kremp and
Mairesse, 2004; Chen et al., 2005) levels. However, measuring <strong>the</strong> intangible resources presents a
problem today. There are several methods both financial and nonfinancial ones that allow us to
manage <strong>the</strong>m, to provide benchmarking, and to analyze its value added function (Sveiby, 2007).
Several studies suggest pro<strong>of</strong>s regarding <strong>the</strong> point that <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital has positive impact on
market value, productivity, return on assets and sales growth (Pulic, 2000; S<strong>of</strong>ian et al., 2002; Chen
et al., 2005; Firer and Williams, 2003; Kremp and Mairesse, 2004; Diez et al., 2010; Laing et al.,
2010).
Intellectual capital (IC) provides <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> knowledge management that helps managers to
identify and to classify <strong>the</strong> knowledge components <strong>of</strong> an organization. Intellectual capital concepts
have been an explosion <strong>of</strong> interesting studies since FORTUNE magazine published in 1991 (Stewart,
703