The concept of intellectual capital (IC) was used to evaluate the activities and outputs of a university medical department. First, a conceptual framework was developed to highlight the importance of various activities as dimensions of IC. The conceptualization of IC was further developed using concept mapping (CM). The authors first considered the problem of what comprises IC and determined whether previous researchers have defined IC in terms of activities. The importance of IC, its definition as an organizational resource and activity, the link between IC and value creation and extraction activities, and the problem of the associated composition of IC taken from existing European guidelines and regulations were discussed. To begin to construct a classification of activities and outputs, the information currently employed for assessing the research, education, and related academic activities and outputs of faculty members were analyzed. Four different evaluation approaches were compared to identify the activities and outputs of a university medical department, and to consolidate the information being collected for evaluation of universities, university‑affiliated research institutes, researchers within universities, and faculty within university departments into an inclusive set of activities and outputs. These were two forms of IC reporting, one used in Austrian universities and the other at a university‑affiliated Swedish research institute together with two other long‑established means of assessing faculty, the Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, and the faculty evaluation and promotion requirements at the University of Toronto in Canada. Education administrators' perceptions were solicited to derive the IC used in a research faculty of a Canadian university. The results indicate that IC can be understood in terms of both activities and outputs. Clinical faculty can be expected to engage in research and its supervision, education, obtaining qualifications, clinical and professional practice, and service. Within these categories, individual activities and outputs were not considered to be of equal importance or impact. Among seventy activities and outputs, articles in internationally refereed journals was ranked as most important, whereas teaching awards was ranked as having the most impact by the most participants. This study extends existing research by using CM to generate a conceptual framework of IC for a department of medicine.