Lessons learned in intellectual capital management in Germany between 2000 and 2020 – History, applications, outlook
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-03-2020-0085 |
| Pages | 560-586 |
| Published date | 24 February 2021 |
| Date | 24 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
| Author | Manfred Bornemann,Kay Alwert,Markus Will |
Lessons learned in intellectual
capital management in Germany
between 2000 and 2020 –History,
applications, outlook
Manfred Bornemann
IAC Intangible Assets Consulting GmbH, Graz, Austria
Kay Alwert
Alwert GmbH and Co. KG, Berlin, Germany, and
Markus Will
Corporate Management, Fraunhofer IPK, Berlin, Germany
Abstract
Purpose–This article reports on the background, the conceptual ideas and the lessons learned from over more
than 20 years of IC Statements and Management with a country focus on Germany and some international
developments. It calls for an integrated management approachfor IC and offers case study evidence on how to
accomplish this quest.
Design/methodology/approach –Report on the German initiative “Intellectual Capital Statement made in
Germany”(ICS m.i.G.). A brief review of the literature describes the background and theoretical foundation of
the German IC method. A short description of the method isfollowed by four detailed case studies to illustrate
long-term impact of IC management in very different organizations. A discussion of Lessons Learned from
more than 200 implementations and an outlook on current and future developments finalizes the article.
Findings –IC Statements made in Germany (ICS m.i.G.) was successful in providing a framework to
systematically identify IC, evaluate the status quo of IC relative to the strategic requirements, visualize
interdependenciesof IC, business processes and business results as well as to connect IC reporting with internal
management routines and external communication. However, ICS is not an insulated method but delivers the
maximum benefit when integrated with strategy development, strategy implementation, business process
optimization accompanied by change management routines. Strong ties to human resource management,
information technology departments, quality management, research and development teams as well as
business operations as the core of an organization help to yield the most for ICS m.i.G. Over time, the focus of
managing IC changes and maturity leads to deutero learning.
Practical implications –ICS m.i.G. proved easy to apply, cost efficient for SMEs, larger corporations and
networks. It helps to better accomplish their objectives and to adjust their business models. The guidelines in
German and English as well as a software application released were downloaded more than 100,000 times. A
certification process based on a three-tier training module is available and was successfully completedby more
than 400 practitioners.ICS m.i.G. is supporting current standardsof knowledge management, such as ISO 9001,
ISO 30401 or DIN SPEC PAS 91443 and therefore will most likely have a continuing impact on knowledge-
based value creation.
JIC
22,3
560
For the scientific development and the practical pilot tests of the ICS method described in this article the
authors counted on the partnership and valuable advice from the research group “Arbeitskreis
Wissensbilanz”, consisting of (in alphabetical order): Daniel Andriessen, Leif Edvinsson, Peter Heisig,
Mart Kivikas, Karl-Heinz Leitner, Kai Mertins, Jan Mouritsen, Klaus North, Sven Skalski (former
Wuscher) and G€
unther Szogs.
Funding: The first stages of the project “Wissensbilanz Made in Germany”(2004-2013), in which the
method as well as the German guidelines, ICS Toolbox, the study “Wissensstandort Deutschland”and
further materials were developed and tested, received funding from the German Ministry of Economics
and Technology (BMWi).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm
Received 9 March 2020
Revised 7 August 2020
9 October 2020
27 November 2020
19 January 2021
Accepted 19 January 2021
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2021
pp. 560-586
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-03-2020-0085
Originality/value –This paper reports lessons learned from the country-wide IC initiative in Germany over
the last 20 years initiated and supported by the authors. Several elements of the method have been published
over time, but so far no comprehensive view on Lessons Learned had been published.
Keywords Case studies, Germany, Intellectual capital management, Strategic management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The years between 2000 and 2020 brought a rich body of literature dedicated to very specific
and more general topics of Intellectual Capital in the Journal of Intellectual Capital. Several
links to other disciplines such as learning (e.g. Ortenblad, 2004), innovation (Durst, 2018)or
strategic organizational development (e.g. Kianto et al., 2014) were established. A special issue
of the Journal of Intellectual Capital is dedicated to contemplate about these accomplishments
as well as to report on lessons learned related to “operational issues”of Intellectual Capital.
A streamof papers is dedicated to test one or twovery specific research questionsin the type
of “xsupportsthe likelihood of y”as well as “xin combinationwith yincrease z”, as forexample
the results of quantitative research pioneered by Bontis(1998) to more modern papers such as
Abeysekera (2010), who focuses on the connection of board size and IC disclosure or current
ones likeNadeem (2019), reflectingon gender diversity and IC disclosurein the context of IPOs.
From an academic perspective, these papers deliver reliable and verifiable results, and
thus, create professional acceptance in the established journals and academic peer groups.
However, the practical impact of such findings in knowledge intensive organizations is found
to be very low (Bornemann et al., 2018,2019). In particular from the perspective of
management and consulting, such papers are of limited value –no matter how rigorous the
“method section”is addressed. Limitation of the number of cases, reference to a small set of
interviews or “due to funding restrictions”most of these papers are not pushing our field to
making a difference in the business community. Similar thoughts must have driven Dumay to
ask for empirical evidence in order to support managers in their attempt “to better
understand the causal relationships (of IC) between their people, processes and stakeholders
(human, structural and relational capital)”with the generated outcomes, “rather than trying
to achieve the impossible generalizations of IC grand theories”(Dumay, 2012).
Therefore, this paper aims to tell a different story, built on practical experience and over a
comparatively long time-frame of 20 years. We identified a research gap in the time frame and
the impact of managing IC in organizations. While many papers cover either a specific (and
usually limited) question or an anonymous mass of organizations, this paper focuses on case
studies over a very long timeline and explores the development of maturity in managing IC.
We focus on differences in strategic priorities and application of IC Management made in
Germany and thus contribute to a more comprehensive view on the field of IC Management in
general as well as to adding economic value by improving understanding for the nature of
Intellectual Capital.
With over 200 case studies generated directly by the authors (as researchers and
management consultants) and at least 300 more from secondary sources with indirect
support of the authors (as trainers and auditors) as a qualitative background, covering any
type of industry (software, automotive, energy commodities, research organizations, etc.),
any size of organization from start-up to stock-noted or federal ministerial administration,
three stories are selected as general representations for business requirements in the SME
sector of Germany. It is one of the most advanced economies globally, knowledge intensive as
few others and yet, challenged by most of the typical troubles identified in both, the business
school management literature as well as academic journals such as JIC.
Based on the context summarized above, the overall research question of this paper is:
What are the main lessons learned from practical implementations of the German IC
management method in long term application?
Intellectual
capital
management in
Germany
561
To continue reading
Request your trial