A quality evaluation approach to disclosing third mission activities and intellectual capital in Italian universities
| Date | 08 January 2018 |
| Pages | 178-201 |
| Published date | 08 January 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0042 |
| Author | Daniela Di Berardino,Christian Corsi |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
A quality evaluation approach to
disclosing third mission activities
and intellectual capital in
Italian universities
Daniela Di Berardino
Department of Business Administration and Management,
University of Chieti-Pescara, Pescara, Italy, and
Christian Corsi
Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –Using the quality evaluation approach, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the contribution of
intellectual capital (IC) to the development of the third mission in Italian universities, defining the impact of
these activities in the regional context. This research aims to verify if the mandatory reporting on quality
discloses the contribution of IC to value creation, enhancing the universities’awareness about IC management
and third mission development.
Design/methodology/approach –The convergence between IC framework and quality evaluation
approach is tested through an empirical research on a sample of 71 Italian universities funded by the
government. Statistical analyses use data collected for the period 2004-2014 during the national assessment
for research activity and third mission performance. The impact of third mission on the university ecosystem
is verified using the indexes related to the territorial development rates.
Findings –This research found significant IC disclosure in the quality evaluation model and it highlights the
possible integration between the IC measures and the quality evaluation indicators. The research findings
show also a positive impact of third mission activities in the university ecosystem and the relevant role of
structural capital and relational capital in the development of third mission. These findings encourage a
collegial discussion in the university governance and among academics, stimulating a strategic behavior in
the whole system
Research limitations/implications –The paper focuses the attention on research activity and third
mission, considering the final results provided by an external stakeholder of university. Further research
must include the role of teaching activity and the opinion of universities’managers, researchers and
administrative staff.
Originality/value –Following the neo-institutional sociology perspective, this researchanalyses for the first
time the convergence between the solid experience of quality assessment and the immature IC culture in
Italian universities. This analysis explores the value created by intangible activities in the university
ecosystem, with a longitudinal perspective, contributing to the fourth stage of the IC literature.
Keywords University, Public value, Intellectual capital, Quality evaluation, Third mission
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Recent literature on intellectual capital (IC) in the public sector focus the attention on the real
ability of IC management methods to create value (Guthrie et al., 2012; Dumay et al., 2015) in
public organizations and in their ecosystems (Dumay and Garanina, 2013; Dumay, 2016).
In the field of higher education, the literature focus on universities and integrating the IC
management approach ( Jones et al. , 2009; Elena-Pérez et al., 2011) with the validation of IC
reporting models (Leitner, 2004; Sanchez et al., 2009; Secundo et al., 2010; Siboni et al., 2013),
preferring an ostensive approach (Mouritsen, 2006). However, a small part of universities
use appropriately these tools to verify and manage the value created by their activities
(Secundo et al., 2016). In European universities, the adoption of performance-measurement
models to verify results is consolidated (Guthrie and Neumann, 2007; Melo et al., 2010),
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2018
pp. 178-201
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-02-2017-0042
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
178
JIC
19,1
in full compliance with the principles of autonomy and accountability requested for
public universities.
The use of public resources by universities is increasingly monitored (Sanchez and
Elena, 2006), and the funding system has forced universities to adopt competitive attitudes
and approached them to promote social and economic growth in their regional context
(Parker, 2007). The traditional efficiency and effectiveness objectives entrusted to public
universities must be re-interpreted based on their ability to create social and economic value,
the real goal of public institutions (Dumay and Guthrie, 2012; Dumay, 2014). Consequently,
management and performance measurements should be anchored to strategic objectives
and measures that not only quantify the outcomes of some processes (Neely et al., 1995), but
also allow stakeholders to assess the adequacy of results according to the resources used to
achieve them (Cave et al., 1988).
The IC measurement models and IC management approach are anchored to long-term
strategic goals and focus on processes as well as resources to highlight value-generation
paths. These tools aim to improve the internal management, effectively develop teaching
and research strategies (Secundo et al., 2015), strategically allocate resources and
communicate adequately with stakeholders (Sanchez and Elena, 2006). The literature on
IC suggests to merge the results-outcome measurement models with approaches focused
on resources-processes (Sanchez et al., 2009; Veltri et al., 2014; Siboni et al., 2013;
Leitner et al., 2014). In this paper, we suppose that a possible convergence manner is the
qualityevaluationsystememployedbyuniversities to assess the performance of their
activities (accountability) and provide useful advice for university management
(enhancement). Quality evaluation activity “focuses and guides the interaction between
the external calls for increased accountability and the internal efforts of an organization
that is addressing it”(Koslowski, 2006, p. 280). A similar purpose is claimed by the
Intellectual Capital of University (ICU) framework (OEU, 2006; Sanchez and Elena, 2006;
Secundo et al., 2016), mainly focused on research and teaching activity.
Recent studies (Secundo et al., 2015) suggest to analyze how IC can promote the development
of a “third mission”within the university, a new mandate that expands the boundaries within
which this institution creates value (Laredo, 2007). The concept of the third mission refers to a
varied array of activities aimed at transferring knowledge useful to society and organizations to
develop entrepreneurial skills, innovation, social welfare and solid human capital and promotes
the development of science and society through various forms of communication and social
engagement (Etzkowitz, 2003; Rothaermel et al. 2007; Hsu et al.,2015).
Some guidelines provided by international agencies aim to monitoring the third mission
within Europeanuniversities, linking this new mission to the innovation goals( Molas-Gallart
et al., 2002).The European Indicators and RankingMethodology for UniversityThird Mission
Project (E3M) proposes a comprehensive structure of measures centered mainly on the
entrepreneurial capacity of universities,in addition to a scoreboard of descriptive indicators of
social engagement activities (European Commission –E3M, 2012). The ICU framework was
developed in an embryonic stage of third mission; for this reason, the predominantly
qualitativenature of the informationrequested by ICU permits explorationof the phenomenon
but does not offer specific insights for the third mission. By contrast, the quality evaluation
system aims to analyze the efficiency, effectiveness and value of research policies and the
third missionby observing how intangible resourceswork in the organization, with a focuson
both intangible activity and intangible resources.
Some authors (Secundo et al., 2014, 2016) adopt the IC framework to identify appropriate
measurements of third mission activities from a performative perspective. Secundo et al. (2017)
propose and test the IC maturity model for monitoring and managing the third mission as well
as research and teaching activities in an integrated manner. These authors show how a
self-assessment tool may contribute to gain better insights about the utilization of IC and may
179
Disclosing
third mission
activities
and IC
To continue reading
Request your trial