Editor: Constantin Bratianu
Editorial
This special edition of the EJKM is a selection of the most significant papers challenging the known paradigms of the Intellectual Capital and showing new perspectives or constructs in this dynamic field of study, presented at the 2nd European Conference on Intellectual Capital hosted jointly by ISCTE Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, and Polytechnic Institute of Leira, Portugal, 29‑30 March 2010.
Statistics show that 186 abstracts were received for this conference. After the double blind, peer review process only 85 full papers were accepted for publication in the Conference Proceedings. They are the intellectual product of 199 authors, from more than 30 countries from all over the world. Finally, only 72 papers were presented during this conference. Judging by statistics and content of ideas, this was a truly international event contributing to a complex and stimulating knowledge sharing process.
The core mini tracks this year were: Knowledge metaphors, Knowledge dynamics, Intellectual capital and higher education, Intellectual capital and entrepreneurial performance, Intellectual capital amid the global economic crisis of 2007‑2009, and How to introduce and manage intellectual capital in SMEs? They were the main attractors for researchers from all over the world and the main thematic clusters of this conference. The opening keynote address was given by Göran Roos, Intellectual Capital Services, UK, in a captivating manner.
The knowledge structure and the knowledge dynamics model developed by Nonaka and his co‑workers was challenged by new perspectives presented by Eckhard Ammann and Constantin Bratianu in their papers Intellectual capital development by means of knowledge conversions, and A critical analysis of the Nonaka’s model of knowledge dynamics, respectively. Ammann presented in his paper a new construct of the knowledge structure based on a 3D approach and a cube metaphor. The new dimensions are: type, kind and quality. The type dimension contains internal, explicit and external knowledge. The kind dimension contains propositional, procedural, strategic and familiarity knowledge. The quality dimension contains level, structure, automation, modality and generality knowledge. The author extended Nonaka’s spectrum of conversion processes with the explicitation process, designed to transform the internal latent or conscious type of knowledge into explicit knowledge. From a different angle, Bratianu demonstrated the limitations of the known Nonaka’s model of knowledge dynamics. Using ideas from thermodynamics, he considered that a real knowledge transfer can be performed only from a higher level of knowing toward a lower level of knowing. The SECI knowledge cycle does not respect this axiom, leading to a knowledge perpetuum mobile. Also, instead of the tacit knowledge‑explicit knowledge dyad used by Nonaka, Bratianu suggested the new cognitive knowledge‑emotional knowledge dyad, emphasizing the importance of the emotional knowledge in the managerial decision making. Stimulated by the metaphorical analysis promoted by Daniel Andriessen in the Intellectual Capital domain, Tiit Elenurm presented the paper Knowledge as an open space. This metaphor appeared in the knowledge sharing process, in the context of using functional interfaces between the internal organizational knowledge and the external field of knowledge.
Strategic thinking and decision making in the context of the organizational intellectual capital is the framework for another group of papers. Christine van Winkelen and Jane McKenzie presented An IC‑based conceptual framework for developing organizational decision making capability. The purpose of this paper was to identify the main factors that will enable knowledge managers to help build decision making capability in their organizations able to support the dynamics between the internal and external business environment. This capability may develop into a dynamic capability if the decision makers learn from their own experience as the external environment becomes more turbulent and unpredictable. Recognizing the strategic importance of the Intellectual Capital, Annie Brooking presented in her paper On the importance of managing intangible assets as part of corporate strategy a practical method that enables management to share the story, called The Dream ticket method. As high technology companies tend to manifest value by way of intangible assets it makes sense to develop a corporate strategy that grows and develops these assets. The challenge is to figure out which assets to develop and how to do it for maximum value. From the same strategic perspective on valuing knowledge assets, with application in the energy systems domain is the paper Valuing knowledge assets in renewable energy SMEs: some early evidence, elaborated by Maria Weir, Robert Higgins, Giovanni Schiuma, Antonio Lerro and Daniel Prokop. This paper presented a four‑step methodology for valuing organizational knowledge and organizational intellectual capital, focused on the Scottish Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the renewable energy sector.
Finally in this issue, there are three papers dealing with a larger perspective of the intellectual capital, beyond the organization borders. Florida Matos, Albino Lopez, Susana Rodrigues and Nuno Matos considering a larger business referential system ask themselves Why intellectual capital management accreditation is a tool for organizational development? Stimulated by other fields of business, the authors make a critical exploration of intellectual capital management accreditation as a factor inducing dynamic innovation in SMEs. Kei Mertins, Markus Will and Cornelia Meyer present in their paper Analysing and enhancing IC in business networks: results from a recent study some specific problems concerning intellectual capital networking, like: reasons, enablers and barriers. The German approach presented in this paper aims at displaying the German business landscape based on its intellectual capital, and to show its configuration of a whole group of companies. Carol Yeh‑Yun Lin and Leif Edvinsson performed a very interesting research, stimulated by the generic question What national intellectual capital indices can tell about the global economic crisis of 2007‑2009? Their approach is based on integrating significant indicators into a representative set for the intellectual capital of a country, and on a comparative analysis of 40 countries from all over the world.
Constantin Bratianu
Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
Look inside Download PDF (free)
Abstract
Look inside Download PDF (free)