“Breaking taboos”. Implementing intellectual assets‐based management guidelines
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930910996625 |
| Pages | 520-538 |
| Date | 16 October 2009 |
| Published date | 16 October 2009 |
| Author | Ulf Johanson,Chitoshi Koga,Roland Almqvist,Matti Skoog |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
“Breaking taboos”
Implementing intellectual assets-based
management guidelines
Ulf Johanson
Malardalen University, Va
¨stera
˚s, Sweden
Chitoshi Koga
Kobe University, Kobe, Japan, and
Roland Almqvist and Matti Skoog
School of Business, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight how, and why, some small and medium-sized
high-tech Japanese firms apply and assess the “intellectual asset-based management” (IAbM)
guidelines issued by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in October 2005.
Design/methodology/approach – This is an interpretive case study linking semi-structured
interview and document data from four Japanese firms that have issued IAbM reports containing ideas
about the processes of creating knowledge and routines in their organizations.
Findings – The findings indicate that the firms studied essentially follow the guidelines, although
pinpointing how this affects their internal management is difficult. The IAbM report is primarily used
for external communication, with the capital market and with existing and potential customers.
Practical implications – The practical implications found in this paper relate mainly to the four
challenges found already in research by Johanson, i.e. uniqueness versus comparability,
confidentiality versus accountability, market communication and management control.
Originality/value – The unique features of this paper are found mainly in the empirical parts, where
the guidelines and the sample of small and medium-sized Japanese firms form an interesting and
seldom used empirical point of departure. The findings concerning actual use and interpretation of a
guideline could also, of course, be regarded as a distinctive aspect of this paper.
Keywords Knowledge management, Control, Japan, Marketing communications,Reports
Paper type Case study
Introduction
In recent years, the Japanese Government has taken great interest in the issu e of
intellectual capital or property. This interest is generated partly by the following
background (METI, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2004, pp. 94-8).
(1) Becoming a nation that quests for sustained growth of its economy and society through
vigorous promotion of creation, protection and exploitation of intellectual property, in
short a “nation based on intellectual property”, is an urgent goal for Japan to strengthen
its industrial competitiveness.
(2) “...there is a need to dramatically enhance the exploitation of intellectual property, as
well as its creation and protection ...”, and it is important to recognize this intellectual
property strategy as central to the management strategy known as “intellectual
property-backed management”.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
JIC
10,4
520
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 10 No. 4, 2009
pp. 520-538
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930910996625
(3) It is vital to construct an environment that permits companies that practise “intellectual
property-backed management” to receive fair valuation in the capital market while they
strive to achieve sustained growth.
A number of reports addressing IC aspects have been issued. These include the
Intellectual Property Policy Outline (METI, 2002); the Pilot Model for Disclosing Patent
and Technical Information (METI, 2003); and the Guidelines for Intellectual Property
Information Disclosure (2004). In October 2005 the Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry (METI) issued the most recent Guidelines for Disclosure of Intellectual
Assets-based Management (IAbM). The primary purpose of these guidelines is to help
corporations (managers) prepare intellectual assets-based management reports. But its
ambition reaches much further: it is also intended to facilitate and improve management,
decision making and learning with respect to the best use of companies’ own ability. The
report is intended to influence stakeholders’ learning about firms’ capability . METI,
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2005) defines IAbM as follows:
Intellectual assets-based management is a management itself rather than an aspect of
management. It is a management method to enhance corporate value with an eye to many
stakeholders. Based on the pursuit of interest, this method intends to make sustainable profits
and growth through making the best use of the corporation’s own ability.
The Guidelines for Intellectual Property Information Disclosure (GIPID) has been
discussed by Johanson et al. (2006), where a number of challenges with respect to the
application of the GIPID were presented:
(1) The challenge of uniqueness versus comparability. The issue at stake was how
indicators in the report might be both comparable among firms (small and
large, different lines of business, etc.) and useful by providing meaningful
knowledge about the individual firm.
(2) The challenge of confidentiality versus accountability.How can different intellectual
assets (IA) issues be described in an IP or IA report without revealing company
secrets and, at the same time, contain confidential information?
(3) The market communication challenge. To what extent does the GIPID reduce
information asymmetry among firms and players on the capital market? The
GIPID comprises new, non-standardized indicators of intellectual property. But
how can these figures help to overcome communication barriers if the meaning
behind the new indicators were hidden? The capital market agents would need
access to reliable and standardized indicators, as well as information about the
management process that supports the IP report disclosed.
(4) The management control challenge. The GIPID addressed external reporting
only, and the question we raised was how the report can support and improve
the management control process.
The first two challenges emanate from the GIPID itself, whereas the latter two
originate in earlier IC research (Holland and Johanson, 2003; Johanson et al., 2006).
Various IC guidelines have been proposed in the last ten years. The most influential
ones are probably the two European proposals, i.e. the Meritum (2002) and Danish
guidelines (DMSTI, 2003) respectively. Notwithstanding the differences, there are
many similarities between these two sets of guidelines and the Japanese ones (Joha nson
“Breaking
taboos”
521
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
