Intellectual capital and performance indicators: Taiwanese healthcare sector
| Published date | 31 July 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930710774902 |
| Pages | 538-556 |
| Date | 31 July 2007 |
| Author | Tzu‐Ju Ann Peng,Stephen Pike,Göran Roos |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
Intellectual capital and
performance indicators:
Taiwanese healthcare sector
Tzu-Ju Ann Peng
Department of Business Administration, Providence University,
Taichung Hsien, Taiwan and Centre for Business Performance,
School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Stephen Pike
Intellectual Capital Services Ltd, London, UK, and
Go
¨ran Roos
Intellectual Capital Services Ltd, London, UK and
Centre for Business Performance, School of Management,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – While the intellectual capital perspective has been widely applied to research in
knowledge-intensive industries, less attention has been paid to the healthcare sector. This exploratory
study aims to investigate how hospitals view the importance of intellectual capital and performance in
the healthcare sector. It identifies the elements and relative importance of intellectual capital and
performance measurement in the Taiwanese healthcare industry.
Design/methodology/approach – This study was executed by a developmental process
comprising four phases: the generation of critical elements; expert revie w and perceptual
assessments of the elements; data collection; and data analysis. This study developed a preliminary
checklist with detailed IC elements and performance indicators derived from both literature reviews
and practices. The questionnaire was refined by expert review. The pilot study collected data from 30
healthcare managers.
Findings – The critical intellectual capital elements and performance indicators regarded as
important for performance management practices in the Taiwanese hospital industry were identified.
They reveal the relative importance and ranking of human, organizational and relational capitals, and
performance indicators.
Practical implications – By using the intellectual capital navigator (ICN) and the Effector Plot, this
study analyzed resource transformations and resource influence among human, organizational and
relational capital. This study highlighted five noteworthy issues.
Originality/value – This study will contribute to both theory and practice. Theoretically, it
generalizes IC in the healthcare setting and is a starting point for exploring healthcare IC and
performance in Taiwan. Practically, it contributes to references for healthcare managers, giving a
prioritized array of critical resources and performance measurements in practice.
Keywords Intellectualcapital, Performance measurement (quality),Health services, Taiwan
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Tzu-Ju Ann Peng would like to acknowledge financial support from the National Science Council
in Taiwan (94-2416-H-126-005). This paper is an extended version of a paper presented at the
PMA 2006 Conference. The authors gratefully thank Bernard Marr, two anonymous reviewers,
and the other conference participants for their valuable comments.
JIC
8,3
538
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2007
pp. 538-556
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930710774902
Introduction
Intellectual capital refers to valuable, intangible and inimitable resources for value
creation of a firm (Roos et al., 2005; Johannessen et al., 2005; Marr et al., 2004; Roos et al.,
2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Bontis, 1998; Roos and Roos, 1997; Sveiby, 1997).
Although the intellectual capital perspective has been widely applied to research in
knowledge-intensive industries, less attention has been paid to the healthcare sector.
Characterized as a highly knowledge-intensive industry, the healthcare sector has long
been facing a highly unpredictable environment. Compared to other industries, the
healthcare sector includes more actors and stakeholders, which makes healthcare
performance management more important but also more challenging.
This study links the intellectual capital perspective with hospital performance.
Because regulatory changes have long been a dominant force in the healthcare sector,
the performance indicators of hospitals are vary not only with between organizations
in the same industry but also in different national contexts. In Taiwan, the Bureau of
National Health Insurance (BNHI) launched the National Health Insurance Syste m in
1995. One of the major programs was the Global Budget that forced hospitals to
encounter cost containment pressures, to rethink what constituted their resource
advantages, and how to manage their performance. By conducting research in Taiwan,
the first purpose of this study is to be an early exploration to discover the nature of
intellectual capital in the Taiwanese healthcare setting. The second purpose is to
delineate a picture of how hospitals in Taiwan adopt performance indicators and to
consider the importance of indicators. Therefore, this study proposes two research
questions:
(1) In the Taiwanese healthcare industry, what are the elements and relative
importance of intellectual capital?
(2) What are the indicators and relative importance of performance measurement ?
Theoretical background
This study is based on the theoretical perspectives of intellectual capital and
performance measurement.
Intellectual capital
Intellectual capital is the set of critical resources used by firms to facilitate productive
activities and generate economic rents. Quinn (1992) addresses the economic and
producing power of the firm, showing that it relies more on its intellectual and service
capabilities than on its hard assets. Roos and Roos (1997) argue that intellectual capital
is the sum of the “hidden” assets of the company not fully captured on the balance
sheet and that it is the most important source for sustainable competitive advantages
in companies. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) use the term “intellectual capital” to refer to
the knowledge and knowing capability of a social collective. Roos et al. (2005) define
intellectual capital as all non-monetary and non-physical resources that are fully or
partly controlled by the organization and that contribute to the organization’s value
creation.
Scholars have proposed different categorizations to classify intellectual capital.
Spender (1996) combines two dimensions of explicit/tacit and individual/social
knowledge to create a matrix of four different elements of an organization’s intellectual
capital. Spender (1996) uses the term “social knowledge” to explain the discrepancy
IC and
performance
indicators
539
To continue reading
Request your trial