Formulating and elaborating a model for the measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish public universities
| Author | Montserrat Manzaneque,Yolanda Ramírez,Alba María Priego |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852315575168 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(1) 149–176
Formulating and elaborating a
! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
model for the measurement of
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315575168
intellectual capital in Spanish
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
public universities
Yolanda Ramı´rez
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Montserrat Manzaneque
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Alba Marı´a Priego
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Abstract
Intellectual capital approaches become critical at universities mainly due to the fact that
knowledge is the main output as well as input in these institutions. Although some
attempts to measure intellectual capital have been made so far, there is still a long way
to go. The purpose of the present article is to provide a model for the measurement of
intellectual capital in higher education institutions. The results of a study done at
Spanish public universities are used to indicate which intangible elements need to be
measured, and a new framework for the measurement and management of intellectual
capital is presented.
Points for practitioners
The main contribution of this article is the validation of the consensus on the key
intangible elements and indicators that should comprise a university intellectual capital
model. Our proposed intellectual capital model helps universities on the path to
presenting information that is useful to their stakeholders, contributing to greater
transparency, accountability and comparability in the higher education sector. This art-
icle offers useful and specific guidelines for intellectual capital reporting practice in
universities. The creation of a framework of intellectual capital reporting facilitates
benchmarking analysis and comparative studies in order to help decision-making
Corresponding author:
Yolanda Ramı´rez, Facultad de Ciencias Econo´micas y Empresariales, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Plaza
de la Universidad 1, Albacete 02071, Spain.
Email: Yolanda.Ramirez@uclm.es
150
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(1)
processes, improve the articulation of public policies and increase transparency in the
whole system.
Keywords
intellectual capital, model, Spain, universities
Introduction
In the actual knowledge-based economy, investments in human resources,
information technology, research and development, and customer relations have
become essential in order to maintain the organization’s competitive position and
to ensure its future (Can˜ibano et al., 2000; Elena and Warden, 2011; Goldfinger,
1997; Nakamura, 1999). The source of economic value and wealth is the set-up and
handling of intangible assets, frequently grouped under the generic term ‘know-
ledge’ or ‘intellectual capital’.
Intangibles and intellectual capital have become a very important issue during
the last decade, not only for academics, but also for users, governments, regulators,
enterprises, investors and other stakeholders (Sa´nchez and Elena, 2005). This grow-
ing interest has extended from firms to public institutions (Melia´n-Gonza´lez et al.,
2010), such as universities and research centres (Bezhani, 2010; Melia´n-Gonza´lez
and Bulchand-Gidumal, 2009).
Intellectual capital approaches become critical mainly due to the fact that uni-
versities’ main goals are the production and the diffusion of knowledge and their
more important investments are in research and human resources (Elena, 2004).
Therefore, both inputs and outputs are mainly intangibles.
Universities become critical elements for the production, transmission and dis-
semination of knowledge:
due to the key role they play in the three fields of research and use of its results, thanks
to industrial cooperation and spin-off; education and training, in particular training of
researchers, and regional and local development, to which they can contribute signifi-
cantly. (European Commission, 2003)
For that reason, the European Union considers that ‘investing more and better in
the modernization and quality of universities is a direct investment in the future of
Europe and Europeans’ (European Commission, 2005: 2).
In this context, European higher education institutions are currently immersed
in a process of profound change, the intention of which is to improve the effect-
iveness, efficiency and transparency of these institutions with the aim of contribut-
ing to the development and improvement of the competitiveness of the European
economy (Dixon and Coy, 2007; European Commission, 2010; Ramı´rez et al.,
2007; Sa´nchez and Elena, 2007; Silvestri and Veltri, 2011).
Ramı´rez et al.
151
Since there is presently no common international framework for managing
information on the intangible determinants of corporate value (only scattered
efforts around the world), it seems appropriate to devote efforts to the development
of new measurement and management techniques in order to help universities to
identify, measure and monitor their intangible sources of value, and thereby
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their management.
New measurement and management systems allow universities to be in a better
position to:
. create transparency about the use of public funds;
. explain the achievements of research, training, innovation and their benefits to
stakeholders;
. illustrate the development of intangible assets;
. reveal leverage effects and externalities;
. communicate (new) organizational values; and
. demonstrate their competitiveness (Warden, 2003).
However, despite all this, only a few universities are trying to measure and manage
their intellectual capital, but they are finding many difficulties. In order to solve
those problems, this article will develop a proposal for a new intellectual capital
measurement model for Spanish public universities. This purpose is to be achieved
via the following operational objectives:
1. The analysis of existing models proposed at Spanish universities,
2. The identification of the key intangible elements in a public university.
This involves identifying the intangible elements that university stakeholders
demand most. To this end, a questionnaire was designed and sent to every
member of the Social Councils of Spanish public universities in order to identify
the intangible items that they consider essential for universities.
3. The elaboration of a battery of indicators to measure these key intangible elements.
The article is structured as follows. In the second section, we briefly explore the
concept of intellectual capital in higher education institutions and justify the
importance of measuring and managing their intellectual capital. The third section
describes the most significant initiatives in measuring and managing intellectual
capital in Spanish universities. In the fourth section, we present our proposal of an
intellectual capital measurement model for Spanish public universities. Final con-
clusions are drawn in the fifth section.
Relevance of intellectual capital for universities
The term ‘intellectual capital’ is used to cover all of the non-tangible, or non-
physical, assets and resources of an organization, including its processes,
152
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(1)
innovation capacity, patents and the tacit knowledge of its members and their
network of collaborators and contacts. So, intellectual capital has been defined
as the combination of intangible resources and activities that ‘allows an organiza-
tion to transform a bundle of material, financial and human resources in a system
capable of creating stakeholder value’ (European Commission, 2006).
Intellectual capital is often represented as consisting of three basic and strongly
interrelated components: human capital, structural capital and relational capital
(Can˜ibano and Sa´nchez, 2008; Leitner, 2004; Rafiee et al., 2010; Ramı´rez et al.,
2007; Secundo et al., 2010).
In the case of universities, we could define the components in the following way:
. Human capital: The set of explicit and tacit knowledge of the universities’ per-
sonnel (professors, researchers and assistants) acquired through formal and
informal educational and actualization processes embodied in their activities.
. Structural capital: The explicit knowledge related to the internal process of the
dissemination, communication and management of scientific and technical
knowledge in the organization. Structural capital may be divided into:
Organizational capital: This refers to the operational environment derived
from the interaction between research, management and organization pro-
cesses, organizational routines, corporate culture and values, internal proced-
ures, the quality and scope of the information system, and so on.
Technological capital: This refers to the technological resources available
at the university, such as bibliographical and documentary resources,
archives, technical developments, patents, licenses, software, databases,
and so on.
. Relational capital: This gathers the wide set of economical, political and insti-
tutional relationships between the university and its non-academic partners:
enterprises, non-profit organizations, the local government and society in gen-
eral. It also includes the perception that others have of the university: its image,
appeal, reliability and so on.
The following are some of the reasons why it is a major necessity for higher
education institutions to measure and manage their...
To continue reading
Request your trial