Introduction
Intellectual Capital (IC), today constitutes one of the most important challenges of Modern Accounting, since it is becoming an essential link for success in the business world. The new challenges in the Knowledge Age are framed in the identification, measurement and evaluation of Intangible Assets.
The objective of this work is to explain through a real case the relationships that exist between the dimensions of the IC: Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relational Capital, according to the INTELEC 1998 model.
Development
Intellectual capital concept.
Addressing the different definitions that exist on this concept, we begin with the one provided by two of the pioneers in this matter, Edvinsson and Malone (1999). These authors explain what they understand by intellectual capital through the following metaphor (Edvinsson and Malone, 1999: 26): “a corporation is like a tree. There is a part that is visible, the leaves, branches and fruits, and another that is hidden, the roots. If we only care about picking the fruits and having the branches and leaves in good condition, forgetting the roots, the tree can die. For the tree to grow and continue to bear fruit, the roots must be healthy and nourished. This is also true for companies: If we only care about financial results and ignore hidden values, the company will not survive in the long term. " So,the aforementioned authors understand intellectual capital as a language that marks the guidelines of thought, speech and action of those who drive the future profits of companies. So-called intellectual capital encompasses customer and partner relationships, innovative efforts, company infrastructure, and the knowledge and expertise of members of the organization (Edvinsson and Malone, 1999; Edvinsson and Stenfelt, 1999; Pasher, 1999).the infrastructure of the company and the knowledge and expertise of the members of the organization (Edvinsson and Malone, 1999; Edvinsson and Stenfelt, 1999; Pasher, 1999).the infrastructure of the company and the knowledge and expertise of the members of the organization (Edvinsson and Malone, 1999; Edvinsson and Stenfelt, 1999; Pasher, 1999).
Along these same lines, Bradley (1997a) argues that intellectual capital consists of the ability to transform knowledge and intangible assets into resources that create wealth both in companies and in countries. Similarly, for Edvinsson and Sullivan (1996) and Sullivan (1999, 2001a) intellectual capital is that knowledge that can be turned into profit in the future and that is made up of resources such as ideas, inventions, technologies, computer programs, designs and processes. Similarly, Stewart (1991) points out that intellectual capital is everything that cannot be touched but can make the company earn money. Along these same lines, Lev (2001) considers that intangible resources are those that can generate value in the future, but that, nevertheless,they do not have a physical or financial body. Similarly, in the Euroforum Intelect project, intellectual capital is defined as the set of assets of a company that, despite not being reflected in the traditional financial statements, generate or will generate value in the future for it (Euroforum, 1998).
For its part, Unión Fenosa (1999) defines it as the set of intangible elements that substantially enhance the organization's ability to generate benefits in the present and, most importantly, in the future. In this way, they consider that the valuation of the company should not derive only from its financial and economic indicators, but that intellectual capital should be especially relevant.
For Stewart (1998), another pioneer in this field, intellectual capital is the sum of all the knowledge that employees possess and that give the company a competitive advantage. Similarly, Dierickx and Cool (1989) state that intellectual capital is simply the stock of knowledge in the company. Along these same lines, Malhotra (2000) argues that in the context of knowledge resources, it represents the group of intangible assets that can be identified and measured. Thus, the interpretation that this author has about knowledge differs from the concept that is traditionally held about it, that is, of knowledge such as knowing and learning. Thus, for Malhotra (2000), knowledge refers to how the company, aided by technology and organizational processes, acquires,use or share knowledge. However, the notion of knowledge assets or intellectual capital goes further and refers to the identifiable aspects of the organization that, although intangible, are considered to add value to it.
In fact, as an example of these knowledge assets, we can cite the shared knowledge models or the service capabilities that the company possesses (Malhotra, 2000). In this way, intellectual capital, which is made up of knowledge, skills, experience, information systems, intellectual property, organizational structures, etc. (Robinson and Kleiner, 1996) can be used to create wealth. However, on many occasions these resources are difficult to identify and even more to distribute effectively (Stewart, 1998). Along these same lines, Wallman (1995, in Edvinsson and Malone), affirms that intellectual capital includes not only the potential of the human brain, but also brands,the names of the products and even the investments that the company made in the past and that, although they have not been revalued in accounting terms, the market has. That is, it includes within this concept all those assets that have value for the company and that are currently valued at zero by it. Therefore, intellectual capital is made up of all intangible resources (Edvinsson and Malone, 1999; Roos and Roos, 1997) and their interconnections (Bontis, 1998; Roos, Roos, Dragonetti and Edvinsson, 2001), considering resources as all those factors that contribute to the generation of value for the company and that are, more or less directly, under its control (Bontis et al., 1999). For their part, Roos et al.(2001) suggest that the intellectual capital of a company is the sum of the knowledge of its members and its practical interpretation. Thus, these authors underline, as did Stewart (1991) and Lev (2001), the intangible nature of intellectual capital and indicate that it is anything that can create value but cannot be touched with the hands.
Based on this notion, and in the same way as Brooking (1997a), Daley (2001), Harvey and Lusch (1999), Lev (2001), Nevado Peña and López Ruiz (2002a, 2002b), Ordóñez de Pablos (1999, 2003), Pasher (1999), Petrash (1996) and Sveiby (2000), Roos et al. (2001) point out that the value of this intellectual capital is given by the difference between the market value of the company and the book value of the same. In other words, the existence of intellectual capital is what justifies the gap between the market value of companies and their book value (Bontis et al., 1999; Edvinsson and Sullivan, 1996). However, Rodov and Leliaert (2002) point out that, although the difference between market value and book value is a proxy that may be adequate to explain the importance of the value of intangible assets,it should not be considered exactly equal to the value of such assets. To make this statement, the authors rely on the fact that the two quantities being compared, market value and book value, have different time dimensions. Thus, while the book value includes the historical cost of the organization's assets, the market value includes the reflections that the shareholders have on the future earnings and growth potential of the company.The market value includes the reflections that the shareholders have on the future earnings and growth potential of the company.The market value includes the reflections that the shareholders have on the future earnings and growth potential of the company.
For their part, Edvinsson and Malone (1999) collect in their work the opinion of H. Thomas Johnson, professor at the University of Portland, about this concept. Thus, this professor affirms that "intellectual capital is hidden within the traditional accounting concept called goodwill" (Edvinsson and Malone, 1999: 18). However, for Edvinsson and Malone (1999) the difference is that the goodwill emphasizes unusual but real assets, such as trademarks, while intellectual capital seeks even less tangible assets, such as example, the company's ability to learn and adapt. Another definition about this concept is the one collected by Brooking (1997b), who points out that intellectual capital is the combination of immaterial assets that allow the company to function,this, in turn, being the result of the combination of material assets plus intellectual capital. In this same line, Nevado Peña and
López Ruiz (2002a: 25) affirm that this type of capital “is the set of assets of the company that, although not reflected in the financial statements, generate or will generate value for it in the future, as a consequence of aspects related to human capital and other structural ones such as, the capacity for innovation, customer relationships, the quality of processes, products and services, cultural capital and communication and that allow a company to take better advantage of the opportunities than others, giving rise to the generation of future benefits ”. Similarly, Wiig (1997) defines intellectual capital as those resources that are created from intellectual activities and that range from the acquisition of new knowledge or inventions to customer relationships. Also,the author claims that his management aims to renew and maximize the value of the company's intellectual assets.
Definition of the dimensions of Intellectual Capital.
Human capital:
It is a strong potential for the company in terms of innovation and value generator, according to (Botis, 1998) it is a source of strategic renewal. In other words, it is the thinking capital of the individual and that allows value to be generated by the company.
Taking Euroforum 1998 as a reference “The human component is made up of the knowledge, values, creativity, skills, potential for innovation, talent, experiences and competences of the individual within the organization. Its most important feature is that companies cannot buy it, only hire it for a certain time and use it in that period ”
Structural Capital:
It is the knowledge that the organization manages to make explicit, systematize and that initially may be latent in the people and teams of the company.
Structural Capital refers to the organizational structure, formal and informal, to the working methods and procedures, to the software to the databases, to the R&D systems, to the management and administration systems and to the culture of the business; (Viedma 2003).
These Assets constitute company property and some of them can be legally protected (Patents, Intellectual Property). This Structural Capital is also called: Internal Structure Assets. According to the authors Euroforum, 1998; Meritum Project, 2002; Petrash, 1996) the structural component integrates the organizational capacities developed to satisfy the market requirements, also the knowledge that has been captured by the organization, including organizational routines, procedures, systems, cultures, databases, etc.
Relational Capital:
It is made up of the relationships that the company has with its clients, distribution channels, suppliers, competitors, alliances, banks, shareholders, etc.
It refers to the portfolio of clients that are known as goodwill, relations with suppliers, banks, shareholders, cooperation agreements, and Strategic production and commercial alliances, trademarks and image of the company.
Relationship between the dimensions of Intellectual Capital.
The following example is intended to meet the objective of this work.
The University of Matanzas “Camilo Cienfuegos” is taken as a case study for 2008, whose mission is to guarantee the universalization of Higher Education by developing the training and revolutionary comprehensive improvement of professionals and cadres, the introduction of science and innovation technological, university extension and computerization, contributing to the massification of culture in the Battle of Ideas for the advancement of Matanzas and Cuban society.
Human Capital at the University is the experiences, knowledge, talent and innovation of the institution's professors and researchers.
Knowledge: improvement, research and information gathering.
Experiences: years of experience, teaching category, ability to put the knowledge acquired into practice.
Talent: Skills, creativity, performance.
Internal customer satisfaction: Motivation, sense of belonging, communication.
Structural Capital is formed as follows:
• It has an emblem that distinguishes it.
• It has the production patent for the anticorrosive paste, software registers, among others.
• The development and research branch has the necessary means to carry out research (computers, Internet access to specialized sites).
• There is an intraweb and each race has its Web pages, as well as an interactive and educational platform.
• Participation in congresses, national and international forums, conference events.
• To contribute to the formation of knowledge, methodological meetings are held at the central, faculty, department and career levels.
It has an infrastructure that supports the main activity of the institution: equipped classrooms, digital and technical laboratories, canteens and cafeterias, among others.
Relational Capital for the university are: the relationships or links established with the environment, including: external clients, mass organizations, suppliers and entities that generate value for the institution.
In this case it would be:
• Meet customer expectations with the highest efficiency.
• Regarding the quality of the service, having the necessary means to fulfill the objective of being the institution.
• Through the external agents of the environment and their criteria, the university is nurtured and knows its weaknesses and strengths.
• Satisfaction with suppliers: that the products and services have the necessary quality, are delivered on time and that the requirements of the contract are met.
• Supplier satisfaction: payment is made on the date indicated, the rules of the contracts are respected.
• Strategic alliance the labor links that exist with various institutions, organizations and companies such as MINTUR, CITMA, ONAT, GEOCUBA, among others.
For example, the introduction of students in companies in the territory with the aim of doing professional practice brings benefits out of mutual need, since the knowledge acquired is applied and the company can also improve its management and decision-making.
| Human capital | Structural Capital | Relational Capital | |
| Human capital | "The human component is made up of the knowledge, values, creativity, skills, potential for innovation, talent, experiences and competencies of the individual within the organization." | It is the basis for Structural Capital, because without it technology is not created, it contributes to the materialization of knowledge, skills and talent.
Example: You can have computers at your disposal, the latest technology, the necessary means to develop, if the internal client (the teacher) does not feel motivated and identified with the institution, and also without the necessary knowledge, then the structural capital it will not generate value to the institution. |
It is the basis for Relational Capital.
Example: Motivated worker, identified with the institution, and also with the necessary knowledge, then the relations with external agents will be favorable, and the Relating Capital will be generating value for the organization. |
| Structural Capital | There may be motivated, satisfied workers, with knowledge, experiences, talent, creativity, scientific category, innovative capacity, desire to work, with a sense of belonging, that if there is not the necessary Capital to materialize the above elements, then, Human Capital will not will generate value to the institution.
Example: A teacher with the ability to generate an article and does not have computers. |
“Structural Capital refers to the organizational structure, formal and informal, to the working methods and procedures, to the software to the databases, to the R&D systems, to the management and administration systems and to the culture of the company" | If we have the necessary means for the comprehensive training of professionals and cadres, then the development of Relational Capital will be favorable, and will create value and prestige for the organization.
Example: If the teacher does not have updated technology and bibliography, then the quality of the service will not be as required. |
| Relational Capital | If the relations with external agents are favorable, based on a mutual understanding, on the quality of the service, on the fulfillment of our expectations, and on the fulfillment of the strategic alliance, it is because the base is Human Capital, then this will be generating value to the organization. | If the relations with external agents are favorable, based on a mutual understanding, on the quality of the service, on the fulfillment of our expectations, and on the fulfillment of the strategic alliance, it is because there is a good structure that generates value for the institution.. | "It is made up of the relationships the company has with its customers, distribution channels, suppliers, competitors, alliances, banks, shareholders, etc."
; |
Conclusions
• Despite the fact that the concept of Intellectual Capital is relatively new, it is necessary to implement it as a management practice of our current companies, due to its importance.
• When dealing with the topic of Intellectual Capital there is a great variety of concepts that are used with nomenclatures and even different definitions. This makes it difficult to study the subject since there is no high degree of consensus either in definitions or in the elements that make up intangible capital.
• Within Intellectual Capital, Human Capital has a greater incidence in this work, since in the case of its study, it plays the main role.
Bibliography:
1- BONTIS, N. (1998): “Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models”, Management Decision, Vol. 36, Núm. 2, pp. 63-76.
2- EUROFORUM (1998): Measurement of Intellectual Capital. Intelect Model, Madrid, Euroforum. Document obtained on the Internet: http://gecon.es/ (March, 2001)
3- PETRASH, G. (1996): “Dow's Journey to a knowledge value management culture”, European Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 365-373.
4- Sánchez Medina, Agustín J. ([email protected]); Melián González, Arturo; García Falcón, Juan Manuel ([email protected]): "Intellectual capital: concept and dimensions"
5- VIEDMA MARTI, JM (2003): "ICBS - Intellectual Capital Benchmarking System",
