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

Marta Christina Suciu et al
aim is to define <strong>the</strong> basis for creating a report that combines accounting measures and those related
to intellectual capital:
4.1 1’st characteristic: (integrating <strong>the</strong> IC models for measuring)
The first element is <strong>the</strong> integration in <strong>the</strong> model <strong>of</strong> economic and financial reports <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> traditional
evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intangible assets and intellectual property. Integration is useful for organizations in
<strong>the</strong> knowledge-era; such intangible assets are essential to business success than those traditional
and tangible. The new reporting system can <strong>the</strong>n be divided into two levels <strong>of</strong> information, each aimed
at valuing, namely past, present and future. And when it is necessary to highlight <strong>the</strong> tangible and
intangible assets, intellectual capital will be included.
4.2 2’nd characteristic: (elements taking in <strong>the</strong> model)?
Despite studies, <strong>the</strong>re is no common model, but <strong>the</strong>re is a common tendency to regard IC as
consisting <strong>of</strong> three main components: human capital, structural and relational. Intellectual capital
approaches recognize that every organization must develop its own system <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital that
will be refined over time and in accordance with <strong>the</strong> strategy. An effective model for intellectual capital
should carry out two tasks. The first is to identify and evaluate various components <strong>of</strong> intellectual
capital through <strong>the</strong> most appropriate indicators. The second is to guide behavior and strategies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
company, providing a basis <strong>of</strong> legitimacy and support investments in human, relational and structural
capital. This approach is not only dynamic but also involves a continuous improvement process for <strong>the</strong>
conversion <strong>of</strong> intangible assets in financial gains.
Human capital must include <strong>the</strong> skills and motivation <strong>of</strong> people. Structural capital must take into
account <strong>the</strong> organizational structure, culture and climate. Relational Capital, finally, it should cover
contractual relations, trust and shared values. The risk that can come without a proper mapping and
measuring <strong>of</strong> relationships between elements is to create groups <strong>of</strong> indicators that have a lack <strong>of</strong>
coherence and, <strong>the</strong>refore, fail to ensure conditions for <strong>the</strong> creation and development <strong>of</strong> intellectual
resources.
4.3 3’rd characteristic (measurement perspectives)
The four perspectives (economic, financial, customer, internal processes and organizational learning
and growth) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Balanced Scorecard method proposed by Kaplan and Norton should be
considered as a starting point for designing <strong>the</strong> model. In fact, you can change <strong>the</strong> original approach
and add additional perspectives to represent <strong>the</strong> most significant organizational reality.
The number <strong>of</strong> analytical perspectives should not be large because <strong>the</strong> complexity increases
exponentially with <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> linking variables, such as identifying indicators is necessary to make
choices to allow sufficient data to build, ensuring <strong>the</strong> right balance between relevance and availability
indicators data. The criterion to be followed in this operation is simply to introduce measures for
factors that significantly differentiate <strong>the</strong> organization that represents innovation and competition and
significant changes to <strong>the</strong> original situation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company.
4.4 4’th characteristic (<strong>the</strong> need for indicators)
A turning point in designing <strong>the</strong> measurement model <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital is <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> what is
measured, namely <strong>the</strong> identification for each element <strong>of</strong> Intellectual Capital, relevant indicators. The
most important is choosing <strong>the</strong> series <strong>of</strong> indicators to be used. A large number <strong>of</strong> indicators measuring
is too general, with <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> losing crucial resources for performance monitoring, leading to a
loss <strong>of</strong> focus on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> users, reducing <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> indicators,
making it too complicated to be managed and understood while <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> a very limited number
<strong>of</strong> indicators cannot capture <strong>the</strong> complexity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> phenomenon. Therefore, it is important to find an
acceptable balance between <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> indicators chosen and <strong>the</strong> ease and accuracy and
consistency <strong>of</strong> interpretation.
The set <strong>of</strong> selected indicators should be simple, easy to read and meaningful to be able to investigate
and monitor a specific element and provide information <strong>of</strong> significant interest from both strategic and
management point, providing a simplified framework for analysis and all components <strong>of</strong> intellectual
capital accounts without favoring one section to <strong>the</strong> detriment <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r. They must be present in <strong>the</strong>
analysis <strong>of</strong> quantitative and qualitative indicators strictly appropriate and specific to each organization.
956