Articlegreen2007

An evidence‐based taxonomy of intellectual capital

Ching Choo Huang · Robert G. Luther · Michael E. Tayles

98 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 Knowledge Management and Sharing

Abstract

Purpose Though intellectual capital (IC) has received much attention for more than a decade, there is a lack of consensus on its components and definition. IC is a multi‐disciplinary concept and the understanding of it varies across different business‐related disciplines. This paper seeks to propose a grouping of IC items based on empirical evidence in the form of managers' responses to questions about the availability of information about IC inside their companies. Design/methodology/approach A postal questionnaire was implemented across 520 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia. The empirical grouping of IC derived by factor analysis is compared with a priori groupings constructed from the IC literature. Findings It is found that the conventional three a priori categories – namely human capital, customer capital and structural capital – expand into eight facets. Nevertheless, there is remarkable consistency between literature‐based expectations and empirical groupings. Research limitations/implications The paper takes a broad scope perspective and in this rapidly evolving field, is based on information in place in 2005. In addition, the usual limitations of postal questionnaire surveys apply. Extension of this research approach to other cultures may reveal a different set of groupings and such research is encouraged. Practical implications Managers and designers of information systems may use the findings as a benchmark against which to evaluate their own systems or proposals. More significantly, the eight‐factor model facilitates conceptualisation, measurement and management of IC and the preparation of IC reports. Originality/value This evidence‐based confirmation of the broad three‐category model, together with the empirical identification of more detailed facets, makes a contribution to the as yet largely normative literature on the classification of the components of intellectual capital.

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 — 98 citations exist upstream.

References

1983Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.1974An Index of Factorial Simplicity 1960The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis 1992The balanced scorecard : measures that drive performance 2020Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis 1999Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.1992The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance.2014An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis

Cited by

2011Effects of intellectual capital information disclosed in annual reports on market capitalization 2017Structure of intellectual capital – an international comparison 2009Intellectual Capital Reporting and Corporate Characteristics of Public‐Listed Companies in Malaysia 2012Evaluating disclosure theory using the views of UK finance directors in the intellectual capital context 2014An ANP-multi-criteria-based methodology to link intangible assets and organizational performance in a Balanced Scorecard context

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.