Dimensions Of Intellectual Capital And
Measurement Of Its Dimensions
One of the problems present in the few works that have tried to measure rigorous intellectual capital is the definition of the dimensions of it. This is probably due to the fact that many authors have tried to define the tangible and intellectual capital suggesting categories and taxonomies without a definition constructing the construct. That is, when the question of what is the intellectual capital, it is often answered by indicating how many different types of intellectual capital there is. It's like trying to explain what a car is, by answering which consists of wheels, lights, steering wheel, etc. The most widely used and recognized multidimensional model is the one proposed by Bontis, Know and Richardson, who divided it into three dimensions: human, structural, and relational pital, and of which there are some consistent empirical studies methodologically speaking. But other authors have proposed very different dimensions, without just empirical validation.
Research Carried out By: Dissertation Help UK
As we have already indicated, the definition of intellectual capital components must be relevant from the theoretical and practical points of view and consistent with the own definition of intellectual capital. Since we have defined the intellectual capital as knowledge capable of creating value, we propose to define the components of this from the division of organizational knowledge in tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is difficult to formalize and communicate, and applicable only to a specific organizational context. The cone-tacit foundation also includes the mental models and beliefs that determine the behavior of the members of the organization. Explicit knowledge, on the contrary, it is that formally structured knowledge, communicable through manuals or any other similar means, and applicable and reusable in multiple situations and contexts. Since the tacit knowledge resides in the members of the organization, we can consider the dimension of human capital as that tacit knowledge that adds value. Explicit knowledge, on the contrary, resides in the organization itself, so we can consider that knowledge explicit that provides value is structural capital. Empirical research shows that there is a strong relationship between the human capital and relational capital. The results of these investigations suggest that the relational capital has been understood as the set of relations of the organization with external agents, depending fundamentally on the relational capacity of their members, so it can be considered as tacit knowledge and, according to our definition of human capital.
But the knowledge associated with these contacts resides in the company in the form of databases that can be accessed by any authorized member of the organization. In this case, it would be about knowledge explicit and would be part of the structural capital of the organization. The division of intellectual capital into human and structural capital is relevant for the practice, because it raises the problem of the appropriation of the income generated by knowledge, and the permanence of that knowledge in the organization.
Consider the case of a company whose contacts with customers are proprietary exclusively from its commercial employees. If a certain commercial leaves the organization, it may be devoid of certain knowledge tacit about the client, which until now was part of their capital human. After the departure of the commercial, it is likely that the company has off explicit knowledge about the client (eg, address, contact person, sales made) that is part of its structural capital. Companies can protect themselves, even partially, from the effects of the rotation of their staff coping with processes of articulation of the knowledge. These processes allow the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit and in-sequence the human capital in structural capital. The accumulation of knowledge about intellectual capital requires, in addition to rigorous definitions, establish consistent measurement tools for your use in empirical research.