Article2005

A framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA)

66 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Intellectual Capital

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Intellectual Capital and Performance Analysis Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting Accounting and Organizational Management

Abstract

Purpose This study investigates the adequacy of existing intangible asset models and defines and codifies common principal valuation drivers of intangible assets for use in enterprise balanced scorecard valuation practices of information technology (IT) firms. Design/methodology/approach Existing intangible asset balance scorecard valuation models and value chain models are evaluated to extract their value components and align them with performance‐based activities of the business enterprise to define a common taxonomy of value drivers of intangible assets. Chief executive officers (CEOs), chief finance officers (CFOs) and “other executives” of IT firms validate the taxonomy. Findings IT firms that use a standard and consistent taxonomy of intangible assets could increase its ability to identify and account for more intangible assets for measurement and valuation. Research limitations/implications This study is limited to the Washington Metropolitan Area, is a single sector study (IT firms), the target audience is CEOs and CFOs; and emphasis is on the Score Card (SC) type model as classified by Sveiby. Future studies could expand the geographic circumference, the scope to other industry sectors, and the target audience to other decision makers Practical implications The framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA) allows a business to identify and link performance measurements/indicators to its intangible value drivers. It supports the capture and subsequent evaluation of leading and lagging indicators in the achievement of a knowledge management strategy. Originality/value FIVA provides a framework to have command of and access to effective utilization of business resources and knowledge, to develop, sustain and enhance its mission effectiveness and/or competitive advantage.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 66 citations exist upstream.

References

1980Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors 1985The Analytic Hierarchy Process 1985Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance 1998Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know 1998Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance 1994Competing for the Future 1979Optimization by the Analytic Hierarchy Process 1998Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations

Cited by

2013A theoretical framework for assessing managing and indexing the intellectual capital 2008Intangible asset management framework for long‐term financial performance 2015The strategic assessment of intellectual capital assets: An application within Terradue Srl 2018The major determinants of influencing the operating performance from the perspective of intellectual capital: Evidence on CPA industry 2013Utilising narrative to improve the relevance of intellectual capital

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.