Expertises for Field of Action 4
Eva Kneisel & Claudia Roessel: "Overview of developments and current state of the debate on intellectual capital from a metaperspective – starting points and development"
"Information and knowledge are the thermonuclear competitive weapons of our time.” (Stewart 1999, S. XIX). This sentence of Thomas A. Stewart, who counts among the pioneers in the field of Intellectual Capital, clearly shows the role of immaterial ressources - especially knowledge.
Since the Mid-1980s already, the extent of value and profit generation through “intellectual” potentials (like e.g. knowledge, experience and information) increasingly attracted the interest of research and practice (Sullivan 2000). Especially enterprises have noticed the relevance of immaterial factors for the value creation process (c.f. Bontis, Dragonetti, Jacobsen, & Roos 1999, p. 392). The realization that intangible assets are a relevant indicator for future economic capability is increasingly taken into account also on political and national levels. The current challenge is measuring, assessing and managing immaterial resources on organizational, regional and national levels with the aim of staying successful in international competition. This expertise starts out from current requirements and tries to show basic historical and present trends within IC research based on recent developments in research and practice. It sketches the starting points of the thematic field “Intellectual Capital” in research and practice as well as the relevance of the topic in contemporary discussions. To this end, it shows the current presence of the topic in entrepreneurial and research practice and sketches and reflects recent and future questions in science, economy and politics.
Additionally, a historical summary of the IC movement outlines relevant stages during the development of the IC concept beginning at its emergence in the 1990s up until today. Besides looking at central perspectives where individual approaches and orientations are located some glances are cast onto categorization options of models and approaches. The expertise closes with a summary of the achieved findings and an outlook on future trends and connecting factors for research.
You can download the complete expertise here (german): Expertise_Kneisel_Roessel.pdf 1.3mb
Guenther M. Szogs: "Communicating and linking Intellectual Capital strategies to Politics – a communication schedule for political consultancy, identification and depiction of synergic fields"
The sliding into the worst economic and financial crisis and the offered explanations in the public debate went along with a crisis in managing and communicating intellectual capital. There is no doubt that dealing with intellectual capital issues was lead by short-term goals. A management devoted to sustainability has been demanded. But still there is little change in the attitudes and strategies of companies, politics and society. Sustainability has to start with sustainable management of intellectual capital – how else will there be a balanced interaction of human-, structural and relational potential ?How can they be established successfully if there are no adequate platforms of communication and debate? Still the communication of IC-issues is somehow paradox. Quite often the continuity in short-term orientation and perfection of approaches that led into the crisis are garnished with the vocabulary of sustainability. One might call this “greenwashing”. On the other hand you get the feeling that the truly long-term oriented analysis and debate is badly communicated in the public and reduced to discussions on congresses among professionals with little public awareness. Some of those contradicting developments are described in this article. It argues for opening the debate for new forms of “knowledge spaces” in the double meaning of the word. It reports on just a few but very specific observations on participative developments in IC-communication that have been successfully tried out on local, regional and sometimes even national level. In this restricted context it can't be much more than a pledge for seriously making use of concepts like “future centers”, round table etc. in order to overcome the deadlock of many good ideas on one side but not balanced sustainable action plans on the other. The coalition agreement of the partners in the new federal government of Germany has addressed a “house of future” for the dialogue with civil society. How do we make sure that those plans lead to a sustainable approach?
Parallel to this contribution Prof. Günter Koch reports on his observation and
analysis of instruments of IC communication like the “round table” approach for
You can download the complete expertise here (german): Expertise_Szogs.pdf 315kb
Prof. Guenter Koch: “Communication and Connection to Politics of Intellectual Capital Strategies – Experience-Based Options for Winning Over Political Decision-Makers”
This contribution maneuvers between a taxonomic description of constituents for a “National Knowledge Agenda” as a possible programmatic route for knowledge policy and an account of what has been done and achieved in other places. This is to show first of all what possibilities exist, but also to show where and how concrete intervention and lobbying is called for to integrate the topical triangle of “Knowledge society – Knowledge Policy – Knowledge Economy” into the awareness of both the public and especially of political decision-makers.
You can download the complete expertise here (german): Expertise_Koch.pdf 1.1mb
Claus Nagel: "What Approaches on Intellectual Capital are Currently Applied in Enterprises?"
In spite of the current financial crisis various framework conditions such as the increasing lack of specialized labor, demographic developments and the global increase in knowledge-intensive services lead to an increasing importance of measurement, assessment and management of immaterial assets for a sustainable organizational development. In the future, limiting factors for organizational growth often do no longer lie in external market environments but are set internally by the adequate availability of employees with specific professional knowledge. This requires a considerably more professional and systematic handling of the resource ‘knowledge’. Against this background, accurate analyses of how immaterial resources are dealt with become an important component for the sustainability of an organization. The expertise introduces the concept of the Intellectual Capital Report surveying three types of capital, namely Human, Structural and Relationship Capital, as an example for such an analysis. The results of an Intellectual Capital Report serve as a reliable early indicator for the future value resp. sustainability of organizations on the market.
Besides the Intellectual Capital Report as an explicit system for managing intangible assets other management systems that at first glance are not part of this category have taken root during the last years. For example, all norm-based management systems like e.g. the DIN ISO 9001 can significantly contribute to dealing with intangible assets in a structured manner.
In addition to the rather qualitative methods of Intellectual Capital Reports and Quality Management, the description of Risk Management as a further approach to managing intangible assets takes a first step towards a quantitative assessment already.
You can download the complete expertise here (german): Expertise_Nagel.pdf 1.1mb
Prof. Dr. Peter Pawlowsky: "Knowledge 2010. Knowledge Navigation Quizzics - Intellectual Capital as Driver of Wealth"
This paper embarks with a question on the current state of the IC issue and the paradigmatic shift connected with this new perspective.
In a Blog  Leif Edvinsson writes on the 12. of April:
"Quizzics is the Art and Science of Questioning, initally developed by the late professor S.Dedijer at Lund University, Sweden. Today it is refined and used in among others Toyota as a knowledge and learning tool. One example is among others Genchi Genbutsu, which is said to mean, ” go and look for yourself” to get the first hand insights. It is also said to be based on a sequence of 5 WHY questions."
So let’s have a look.
This contribution aims at developing some questions that may help us to learn more about the IC perspective and its potential to drive a paradigmatic change in western industrialized economies. It does not intend to give a representative or scientific picture of the developments and current state of research but rather argues on the basis of subjective impressions on the developments of the Intellectual Capital research and implementation issues. It aims at giving a subjective input into the current debate on Intangibles, Human Capital, Intellectual Capital and Knowledge and argues that an integration of IC concepts into political strategies, regional development and corporate policies is vital for the development in knowledge economies, but more so it intends to question.
The necessity for a complete change is put forward by Leif Edvinsson- who certainly is one of the “Leitfigures” in the developments of this new paradigm.
“The wave of IC is increasing. It is evolving within universities, accounting standards groups, political and business communities. The message is that we need to understand and follow the wave of knowledge economics. The alternative is perishing by riding the life cycle curve of industrial economics down. It is a leadership liability not to address the potential or IC in waiting. A new type of Society entrepreneurship might be the key role to nourish this longitude value!” (L. Edvinsson, (without year) Emerging Perspectives of Assessing and Navigating both Regional and Business Value Creation).
I will focus on three levels:
· The country level: The IC of nations
· The regional level: The IC for regions, cities and local communities
· The organizational level: Corporate IC
You can download the complete expertise here (english version):