Abstract:
This study sets out to address the question of whether the costs and the
benefits
of measuring intellectual capital assets differ depending
on the
driver for that measure.
Although pressure is growing on
firms to measure and report on their
intellectual capital assets no research has
yet been published that
questions the costs associated with such actions. And although academic
research has
purported to show
links between the management of
intellectual capital assets and real business benefits the research carried
out thus far'has
not
focussed specifically on the benefits of measuring
intellectual capital assets. Although there are now a variety of intellectual
capital asset measurement
frameworks there has been
no cross
comparison as to which
intellectual capital asset measures provide the
most business insight or where the outcome of that measurement is
most effective.
Using a multi method approach the thesis is tested in three phases; an
extensive
literature review covering intellectual capital, performance
measurement and organisational effectiveness; a survey and content
analysis to explore what and why companies measure; and structured
interviewing of six companies to investigate the costs and the benefits
of measurement.
The thesis is tested through the investigation of thirteen propositions
which show that: firstly, there is
a
difference in the relative cost of
measuring intellectual capital assets given the measurement driver,
which
is explained
by the frequency of measurement, the mode of
data
collection and analysis, and whether the use of the measure is a
by
product of some other driver, secondly, that the insight provided by an
intellectual capital asset measure
differs given the measurement driver,
thirdly, that the measurement of intellectual capital assets is most
effective
for planning the future; and
lastly, that particular measurement
drivers
are effective, to differing degrees, in financial,
customer,
operational, people and
future
organisational performance
domains.
