Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research. A critical case study in university settings
| Date | 08 January 2018 |
| Pages | 157-177 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0113 |
| Published date | 08 January 2018 |
| Author | Giustina Secundo,Maurizio Massaro,John Dumay,Carlo Bagnoli |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
Intellectual capital management
in the fourth stage of IC research
A critical case study in university settings
Giustina Secundo
Department of Innovation for Engineering, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy
Maurizio Massaro
Department of Statistics and Economic Sciences, Udine University, Udine, Italy
John Dumay
Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, and
Carlo Bagnoli
Department of Management, Ca’Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a university that uses a collective
intelligence approach for managing its intellectual capital (IC). Specifically, the authors investigate how one of
Europe’s oldest business schools, Ca’Foscari University of Venice (Italy), manages IC through stakeholder
engagement to achieve academia’s third mission so contributing to social and economic development.
Design/methodology/approach –Data are collected through semi-structured interviews and Ca’Foscari
University’s strategic plan. Secundo et al.’s (2016) collective intelligence framework is used to analyse the
data. Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000, pp. 19-20) critical management tasks –insight, critique and transformative
redefinition –are adopted to frame and discuss the results.
Findings –On the assumption that a u niversity is a collectiv e intelligence syste m, the findings
demonstrate that IC man agement needs to change to incorporate an ecosys tem perspective, refle cting
the fourth stage of IC research. The IC management at the university incorporates its core goal (what),
the collective involve ment of internal and external stakeholders toac hieve the goal (who), the motivations
behind the achievement of the go al (why) and, finally, the processes activated inside the un iversity (how)
and indicators to assess value creation.
Research limitations/implications –A new perspective for mana ging IC in universities that adopts a
collective intellig ence approach is further developed. Co ntributions to the fourth stage of IC resea rch –IC
in an ecosystem –are highlig hted that expand the concept of IC value creation beyond universit ies into
wider society.
Practical implications –Two key consequences of this case study are that more stakeholders have become
involved in IC management and that IC management requires critical rethinking, given the universities’
evolving role.
Originality/value –This paper brings together issues that are usually dealt with in separate domains of the
literature: IC management and collective intelligence in the university setting.
Keywords Universities, Social value, Stakeholders, Intellectual capital, Collective intelligence
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
This paper presents a critical case study to analyse how universities can strategically
manage intellectual capital (IC) to capture the distinctive role of all its stakeholders.
Specifically, we investigate how engaging stakeholders creates value in a university by
analysing how IC management helps one of Europe’s oldest business schools, Ca’Foscari
University of Venice (Italy), to achieve academia’s“third mission”. The third mission
considers universities to be a key factor in economic and social development (Bercovitz and
Feldman, 2006), in addition to their first mission, to teach, and their second mission,
to research (Laredo, 2007). This evolving mission requires universities to shift from an
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2018
pp. 157-177
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0113
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
157
IC management
in the fourth
stage of IC
research
administrative focus to a strategic one. To date, university management has been built
around a culture of collegium and bureaucracy (McNay, 1995, pp. 105-108), but a “new
wave”of management thinking in the private sector is now permeating the public one
(Brereton and Temple, 1999, pp. 459).
Similarly, IC is also evolving beyond the first and second stages of research devoted to
evaluating IC’s influence on financial performance into its third stage (Dumay, 2013; Dumay and
Garanina, 2013) and fourth stages of research (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). Third stage research
examines how IC can be used as a management technology in practice (Guthrie et al., 2012),
and highlights that identifying and measuring intangible assets is important for increasing the
impact of IC (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). Moreover, the third stage considers that value is not
just monetary (Dumay, 2009, p. 195). In this case, all evaluation methods of IC become just tools
for managers of companies who are more concerned with real implications of IC management for
value creation than just pure IC measurement. Furthermore, the rise of the knowledge economy
and increased networking in society (Edvinsson, 2013) has created the fourth stage of IC
research (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). This stage explores how IC can be used to manage
external environments, especially stakeholders (Secundo et al., 2016). Incorporating external
stakeholders is important for developing strategic plans that combine performance measures
with governance and accountability, and is instrumental in transforming public universities into
more enterprise-like institutions.
An ancillary aim of this study is to respond to Mouritsen and Roslender’s (2009, p. 802)
call for IC research “from a more thoroughly critical perspective”. We adopt this perspective
to investigate how IC drives strategic management and value creation within a university.
We use Secundo et al.’s (2016) framework to identify and analyse how stakeholder
engagement allows Ca’Foscari University to strategically manage and measure IC in
practice so contributing to social and economic development. Alvesson and Deetz’s
(2000, pp. 19-20) critical management tasks –insight, critique and transformative
redefinition (change) –are used to frame and discuss the results.
Findings critically examine IC in practice in a university through the involvement of the
internal and external stakeholders to create value. Here, the concept of value goes beyond
monetary wealth, to include utility, social capital and sustainability (Dumay, 2016).
The most value created in universities is intangible because most universities are not
motivated by profit (Dumay and Guthrie, 2012). However, Ca’Foscari University’s third
mission considers generating value for the wider economic and social development of
society. Our critical insights demonstrate that, to achieve such goals, the frameworks used
to manage and measure IC in universities needs to change and the current one-size-fits-all
approach to IC is unsatisfactory.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: Sections 2 and 3 examine relevant
literature. Section 4 presents the research methodology.Sections 5 and 6 present insights and
critiques we derive from the findings. Finally, Section 7 emphasises the need for
transformativeredefinitions of a decadeof IC research in universities and concludesthe paper.
2. Literature review
This section explains the third stage of IC research and then provides the rationale behind
IC management for value creation through stakeholder engagement in a university setting.
2.1 The third and fourth stages of IC research
The study of IC is important because “IC as an innovative management technology is topical
in the academic literature and practice”and “over the years, IC research has progressively
changed its focus”(Chiucchi and Dumay, 2015, p. 306). Accordingly, because of IC’s
changing focus, we adopt Dumay’s (2016, p. 16) revised IC definition, being “[…] the sum of
everything everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge […] Intellectual
158
JIC
19,1
To continue reading
Request your trial