The intellectual capital of higher education institutions. Operationalizing measurement through a strategic prospective lens
| Pages | 355-381 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2018-0117 |
| Published date | 29 April 2019 |
| Date | 29 April 2019 |
| Author | Eugénia Pedro,João Leitão,Helena Alves |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
The intellectual capital of higher
education institutions
Operationalizing measurement through
a strategic prospective lens
Eugénia Pedro
Department of Management and Economics,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal and
NECE –Research Center in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
João Leitão
NECE and C-MAST,
University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal and
CEG-IST and ICS, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Helena Alves
Department of Management and Economics,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal and
NECE –Research Center in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present an innovative operational proposal for measuring
the intellectual capital (IC) of higher education institutions (HEIs) through a strategic prospective lens
of analysis.
Design/methodology/approach –After providing a litera ture review on the metho ds for measuring
IC that focuses on the organisational IC of HEIs, four case studies applied to Portuguese HEIs are
presented, using a mat rix of cross-referen ced impacts –multiplications applied to a classification
(MICMAC) approach .
Findings –The empirical findings reveal how human capital, structural capital and relational capital make
up the core components and provide a fairly diversified list of the measurement indicators for the operational
evaluation of the IC of HEIs.
Practical implications –It contributes into the literature of strategic prospective analysis of HEIs by:
analysing the measurement systems for the organisational IC interrelated with HEIs; identifying the key
components to the organisational IC of HEIs and their respective measurement indicators; and draufting a
new method for operationally implementing organisational IC through the systematic application of the
components and indicators identified.
Originality/value –Through an innovative vision, the present study reconciles and systematically
structures the methods already proposed by other authors before presenting an innovative operational
approach and an alternative to the already existing methods. In addition, the structure of this proposal itself
enables HEIs to choose from among the various indicators proposed for IC, correspondingly those that best
align with the type of institution under evaluation.
Keywords Strategic management, Intellectual capital, Highereducation institutions, MICMAC, Prospective
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2019
pp. 355-381
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-07-2018-0117
Received 23 July 2018
Revised 12 November 2018
17 February 2019
Accepted 3 March 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The authors gratefully acknowledge the editor and the anonymous reviewers for providing very
constructive and useful comments that enabled us to make additional efforts to improve the clarity,
scientific soundness, positioning and quality of our research. Funding: the authors acknowledge the
financial support granted by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) to the research project:
“U-value”PTDC/EGE-OGE/29926/2017.
355
Intellectual
capital of HEIs
1. Introduction
HEIs should compete more openly for teaching staff, researchers, students and financial
funding, while also adopting management procedures and producing reports and other
informative documents that enable internal and external bodies to evaluate their
performance (Sánchez et al., 2009). This has caused increased interest in application of the IC
concept to HEIs (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles,
2012; Veltri et al., 2014; Santos-Rodrigues et al., 2015).
To deal with multiple missions and fulfil their duties regarding the provision of
accounts, HEIs need to improve management mechanisms, accountability and the
presentation of results (Sánchez et al., 2009). As recognised by Chatterton and Goddard
(2000), responding to new demands also requires new types of resources and new forms of
management to allow HEIs to make a more dynamic contribution to effective fulfilment of
their development process.
In this context, HEIs have been recognised as critical actors in national innovation
systems to fulfil the Lisbon Strategy in relation to creating a Europe of Knowledge
(OEU, 2006), and the European Union has also issued a specific recommendation to promote
IC reports in HEIs and research institutions (European Commission, 2006). The OEU (2006)
also mentions that in the near future, publishing information about IC should be obligatory
for this type of institution.
More recently, researchers have shown greater interest in the application and
management of IC in the HEI context (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011;
Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Veltri et al., 2014; Santos-Rodrigues et al., 2015). However, so far,
little attention has been paid to the use of prospective analysis methods that allow
assessment and greater adoption of IC management practices in HEIs, following a strategic
vision over time. Added to this is the difficulty of measuring the intangible nature of IC,
confirmed by previous attempts to propose indicators to measure and operationalise the
concept, above all in the organisational context. This is reflected in studies that focus on
situational, short-term visions that are unable to produce a matrix to serve as a guide to
decision making based on IC management practices oriented towards a long-term strategic
vision of organisations. The exception is found in studies that use different types of
prospective analyses, namely systemic analysis (Elena-Pérez et al., 2011), analysis based on
scenarios (Serna, 2013) and analysis using the Delphi technique (Munar et al., 2014), which
although providing analyses applied in the HEI context, are based on different approaches
from the one presented here.
The study by Elena-Pérez et al. (2011) provides a systemic prospective analysis aiming to
indicate future directions for academic departments, helping to identify future research
topics and curricula; and to define strategies for human resources, with a view to carrying
out those research activities and offering new courses.
In Serna (2013), the analysis is based on hypothetical scenarios and specific actions in the
context of systems of competitive intelligence and technological surveillance, to identify the
most relevant variables to be monitored by research groups, as a preliminary step towards
subsequent exercises of technological forecasting.
Munar et al. (2014) measured the variables of intellectual capital (IC) in the University of
Atacama, for a future ten-year period, using the Delphi technique, which is a method of
group decision making characterised by each group member presenting their ideas but
never face-to-face with the other elements.
This study differs from the three previously presented in two ways. First, it uses a
structural analysis method, which is a systemic method in the form of a matrix (MICMAC),
to analyse the relationships between the variables forming the system studied and those
belonging to its explanatory context, aiming to reveal the main influencing and dependent
variables, and therefore the essential variables for development of the system studied
356
JIC
20,3
To continue reading
Request your trial