Abstract
Contends that the current treatment of intellectual capital possessed by organizations (either knowledge intensive or otherwise) has been somewhat superficial. For instance, the terms “intellectual” assets and “intangible” assets have often been used interchangeably, although a case can be made that there are differences between these two groups of assets. To date there has been too much focus on intellectual assets – and to some extent an implied equivalence between intellectual assets and intellectual capital. Considers the issue of the other factor within the intellectual capital equation, namely, intellectual liabilities. For if double entry is to apply in the area of intellectual capital then with every debit (in the sense of a building up) there should also be allowed the possibility of a credit (in the sense of a reducing down). In fact intellectual capital is more appropriately derived as a net figure (subtracting intellectual liabilities from intellectual assets) rather than a mere summation of the organization’s identified intellectual assets. Whether or not actual absolute values can be derived is also considered questionable.
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting,Education
Reference36 articles.
1. Berman, P. (1996), “Magma‐nificent deal” , Forbes, Vol. 157 No. 2, pp. 14‐15.
2. BHP (1999), Report to Shareholders for 1999, http://www.bhp.com.au/financials/rts99/rts‐99‐20.htm
3. Boynton, A.C., Victor, B. and Pine, B.J. (1993), “New competitive strategies: challenges to organizations and information technology”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 40‐64.
4. Bradley, K. (1997), “Intellectual capital and the new wealth of nations”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 53‐62.
5. Brooking, A. (1997), “Management of intellectual capital”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 364‐5.
Cited by
105 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献