Purpose This paper describes the result of an empirical study into the critical success factors for implementing an intellectual capital valuation method, the KPMG Value Explorer®. Methodology/Approach For this study the design approach was used as research methodology. Findings The research shows the strengths and weaknesses of the method and identifies four general critical success factors for the implementation of intellectual capital valuation and measurement tools.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: Intellectual capital theory and practice predominantly focus on measuring and managing intangible assets. However, if we want to balance the intellectual capital books (Harvey and Lusch, 1999), we should recognize both intellectual assets and intellectual liabilities (Caddy, 2000). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present a theoretical framework for measuring intellectual liabilities. Design: Identifying intangible liabilities is identifying the risk of decline and fall of organizations. One of the first extensive studies related to causes of decline and fall is Gibbon‟s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon, 2003 [original publication 1776]). It seems as if the main lessons that were drawn from this study are also applicable to today‟s business environment. Therefore, the framework that is developed in this article is not only based on intellectual capital literature, but also on Gibbon‟s study into the causes of decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Findings: The findings are combined in a framework for measuring intellectual liabilities. The main distinction within the proposed framework is the distinction between internal and external liabilities. Internal liabilities refer to the causes of deterioration that arise from the sources of value creation within the organization. External liabilities refer to the causes of deterioration that come from outside and are beyond control of the organization. Originality: This article explores a relatively new topic (intellectual liabilities) from a perspective (historical sciences) that is hardly used in management science.
DOCUMENT
Knowledge valorisation is the transfer of knowledge from one party to another for economic benefit. The concept of valorisation is based on the underlying metaphor of KNOWLEDGE AS A THING. It is the same metaphor that makes it possible to talk about the value of knowledge. If knowledge is like a ‘thing’, then that ‘ thing’ must have a specific value. Value can be defined as the degree of usefulness or desirability of something, especially in comparison with other things, and is by definition subjective. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Any valuation method therefore needs to take into account this subjective nature by deliberately choosing the appropriate ‘standard of value’ (value to whom?) and ‘premise of value’ (value under what circumstances?). There are three ways to determine the value of something of which financial valuation is the most used. In turn financial valuation can be done using a cost approach, a market approach or an income approach. In most cases the income approach is the most appropriate. However, this approach requires a number of assumptions to be made; most of which are impossible to validate. The formulas that are used in the process can be intimidating to non-experts with the danger of disguising the inherent subjective and speculative nature of any valuation of knowledge as a ‘thing’.
DOCUMENT
