Iván Andrés Ramirez Pinzón
PPGCI (IBICT/UFRJ), Brazil
Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Colombia
E-mail: ivanrapi@gmail.com
Úrsula Maruyama
CEFET-RJ, Brazil
E-mail: maruyama.academic@hotmail.com
Submission: 08/06/2016
Accept: 25/07/2016
ABSTRACT
Public administration is
not alien to knowledge society or to the "new economy". Thus, it is
transforming itself to these new requirements, improving its processes to meet
the needs of citizens. In this context intangible assets play an important role
and become a source of competitive advantage, but only if they are properly
managed. Therefore, it is necessary to previously identify intangible assets.
This paper revisited the literature in order to comprehend intellectual capital
model reflecting different capitals which make up institutions. This study aims
to propose an intellectual capital model that enables measurement and
management of intangible assets in public administration, including specific
issues of public entities.
1. INTRODUCTION
We are immersed in a dynamic environment, complex, variable and uncertain
(PRAHALAD; HAMEL, 1990) that affects all economic sectors, both in private and
in public. In addition, it produced a transformation of the economy in which
the intangible assets are the main factors of value creation and wealth (GRANT
1996; AMIT; SCHOEMAKER, 1993; BUENO, 1998).
This
perspective leads to redefine the civil service and the public service from the
new approach, which requires to know that assets related to information,
knowledge, talent. Organizational learning has public authorities, seeking
mechanisms to know and measure the value of knowledge and public intellectual
capital, to learn how to create, transform and transmit, and thus to carry out
an efficient and effective management of these resources.
These
factors enable the performance of the public service and enable its management
to provide the precise capabilities to achieve flexibility, responsiveness and
quality to meet the demands of citizens and other social actors. Despite the
actuality of these concepts, we have to be aware that ideas related to
intellectual capital are not new, active immaterial always have existed in
organizations. It happens that the interest increases as extending the new
economy based on information technology, growing service businesses and appear
more entities based on knowledge.
This
study aims to review the literature on intangible capital and knowledge,
highlighting the importance these resources have in the public sphere from the
two main strands of thought on capital.
2. ROLE OF INTANGIBLE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Intangible assets are having a growing importance for the company and
supporting its competitive advantage as its specific characteristics make them
have a strong potential differentiator respect amongst competitors (SALAS,
1996; BUENO, 1998). Factors such as the company's image, technological
knowledge, human capital or brand are variable with a weight increasing in
explaining business success (NAVAS; ORTIZ DE URBINA, 2002).
Thus,
the private sector do not have estimated efforts to draw models of measurement
and management of intangible capital or to find new indicators to evaluate more
precisely organizations strategies. However, public authorities have provided
very little interest as, registration and management of intangible assets or
intellectual capital. Besides, despite its undoubtable interest, intangibility
is more present in the public sector than in private companies (BOSSI et al.,
2005).
In
the public sector, intellectual capital has a greater range than private
sector: first, because the objectives of public bodies are not profitable;
secondly because the resources used more intensively are immaterial; and
thirdly because the most frequent objective of management is to provide
services and these are, in essence, intangible.
Nevertheless,
public administration has faced with real delay compared to private companies,
the importance of intangibles as critical to a proper strategic direction and
as quality generators and competitive advantages. Finally, public sector looks
forward to making less effort in studying, registration, management and
measurement.
3. ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE THESIS
But what kind of assets are we talking about? There are different concepts
such as: "intangible assets", "intellectual capital",
"human capital", "immaterial assets," "invisible
assets", "knowledge capital", "intellectual assets",
etc. It seems that we are before a lack of widespread basic agreement on any
kind of research or publication (KNIGHT et al., 1993; SWAN; SCARBROUGH, 2001).
In our work we use indistinctly the "intangible" and "intellectual
capital" terminology, as numerous authors did (LEV, 2003; CAÑIBANO et al,
2004, SÁNCHEZ., 2008).
Intellectual
capital and knowledge (BONTIS 2002) are concepts that are closely related to
the point that some authors believe they are synonymous (DARROCH; MCNAUGHTON,
2002). We state, as most scholars of this subject (PELUFFO; CATALAN, 2002;
OLEA; SOLÉ, 2002; SANGUINO, 2003; VIEDMA, 2000), that they are different
concepts - although there is subtle line between them. Knowledge is the basis
of intellectual capital, the most important component of intangible assets and
the main source of innovation systems in the value creation process for
organizations and competitive advantages. Intellectual capital is a broader
concept which includes not only individual and organizational knowledge, but
also elements such as customer loyalty, employee satisfaction, databases or
market information.
On
the other hand, there are multiple classifications of intangible that have
appeared since the nineties – the apex of intellectual capital theory. First
classifications of these features are due to authors such as Brooking (1997),
Sveiby (1997), Edvinson and Malone (1997).
Currently,
among all existing classifications, the most used is the one which breaks down
intellectual capital into three major components: human capital, structural
capital and relational capital (EUROFORUM, 1998; ROOS; ROOS, 1997; BUENO,
1998), which are based the proposed Edvinsson and Malone (1997).
In
the preparation of the public sphere models to measure intellectual capital, it
is usually from three classic: human, structural and relational capital adding
the appendix "public." The structural capital public is dismembered
in public organizational capital, public technological capital, and relational capital, according to
Intellectus model (BUENO et al., 2003).
It
presents briefly the contents of each of these cities:
public human capital: The public human capital refers to the knowledge, either
explicit or tacit, individual or social, that have members of the organization
and groups, as well as its ability to generate, that is, the ability to learn
and to share knowledge with others for the benefit of the organization, and
that is of great use to achieve the mission of the entity. In turn the human capital
is based on three groups: (i) values and attitudes, (ii) expertise and (iii)
competition.
Public structural capital: is the set of knowledge and derivatives intangible
assets of action processes that are owned by the organization and get it when people
leave, unlike what happens with human capital (MERINO et al, 2004).
Public relational capital: includes the set of intangible derived from
relationships that keeps the organization with the different agents linked to
it (BUENO et al, 2003). It breaks down into two: public capital and relational
capital of the entity.
The
public capital collects organization utility to develop its role as a public
service to citizens. The public entity relational capital refers to the value
that have relations with the key players linked to the entity main activity.
4. OWNERSHIP/HOLDING THESIS
The
new thesis on the forms of appropriation / exploitation of the worker's
intellect, that is, those that are dominated today as a kind of immaterial
production, this is the argument that knowledge would have grown in importance.
This knowledge could not be reduced to its technical dimension, once formalized
by the capital in traditional industries. With this, "the knowledge of
experience, discernment, coordination capacity, self-organization and
communication. In a nutshell, forms a living knowledge acquired in everyday
traffic, which would form a resistance to capital appreciation logic.
The
unfolding of capitalist productive forces would have created, with this, an
exploration niche antagonistic labor to the capitalist valorization process.
Knowledge, high central product in contemporary capitalism, would tend to
establish itself as a "non-commodity". If, at the one hand,
capitalist forces try to maintain access to this knowledge the goods, on the
other, this task cannot be completed in its entirety, as it would be in
dissonance with the capital expansion movement.
The
extent of commodity production would not allow the restriction of the operation
of certain works. For the same, the universalization the products of immaterial
labor characterize the knowledge formalized and codified as a good of
unrestricted access.
In
terms of Gorz (2003), the radicalization of immaterial production would become
therefore essence of the expression of a "communism of knowledge."
This cognitive productive force, generated in interstices "of capitalist
society, the daily experiences of individuals would, finally, the theory of
value / work to excrescence, as would mark one contradiction between universalization
logic of immaterial goods and forms to merchandise.
The
redesign the historical form of capital appreciation today would base the
non-operational character of Marxism as an analytical tool. So are structured
are two closely related problems. The first is with respect to a new
productive, synthesized by immaterial type of production. The second is linked
to the operability of Marxist social theory and the analysis of immaterial
production.
To
immaterial work is adopted an ‘autonomization process’ regarding recovery
processes and capital accumulation. Its immeasurability would become a matter
of life or death for the recovery process. Once the capital can restrict
immaterial production to the value of change, the logic of social reproduction
would be guaranteed. In the meantime, the production of new information
necessarily presupposes new knowledge accumulated and disseminated by the
worker and, grin, grin, the tension would remain ever present.
It
turns necessary to restrict, then the product knowledge to their own logic,
limiting, the capital. The suggestion presupposes, first, a turn of the control
of knowledge process could be sued for himself; and second, a reduction of the
immediate job, causing a reduction of the payment and the amount of change of
goods. With this, the monetary value of goods is tended to reduce, which would
imply that the wealth and profits produced decrease at the point of disruption
capitalist accumulation base.
Cognitive
capitalism would be announced in the whole of this analysis, as anteroom of the
"crisis of capitalism in its strictest sense". Such remark supports
the idea of a ticket to socialism from capitalism interstices rather than
overcoming it. Finally, this reading is based overcoming the antagonism between
social classes based on the prescription of a consensual alternative social
conflicts, a kind of pact gentlemen
Set
up this way, an ambivalence, therefore, that the "knowledge capital"
can enter the circulation, it must be converted into commodity capital, it
should be associated with the traditional forms of capital, since "it is
not capital in order usual, and does not have as a primary destination to serve
the production of excess value, nor no value, in the usual sense. "not
adjusting to the traditional standard of capital appreciation and at the same
time, developing a central productive force, "knowledge capital"
would present itself as a moment of negation of capitalism. Still, that
"Wealth creation is separated from the creation of value",
individuals should recognize their tendency on the basis of an awareness. With this,
the market value would lead to a wealth that could not be regulated by capital.
On
the one hand, a commodity production so that deepens the capitalist economic
rationality, the other an immaterial mode of production in which would be the
principles of social transformation articulating within the same logic, the
same system. The output from the viewpoint of capitalist production, is
transform "knowledge capital" in capital goods so that it can enter
the circulation process. The knowledge capital takes the form of merchandize,
it is characterized as capital. Its peculiarities are subject to capital as a
social relation.
5. IMMATERIAL PRODUCTION AND SUBJECTIVITY
The
ability to acquire new information, new technical knowledge provide the
immaterial worker strategic area of their productive activity. Its activity
goes back to the principles of craft activity in which the employee held the
domain of the work process on account of its production expertise. Let's see
how Negri forwards the question: The immaterial labor - one that produces
intangible goods such as information, knowledge, ideas, images, relations and
emotions - tend to be hegemonic. (...) Immaterial labor can only be achieved
collectively, exchanging information, knowledge. (...) Everyone who works with
information or knowledge - the farmer develops the specific properties of the
seeds to the software programmer - uses common knowledge transmitted by others
and contributes to produce it (LAZZARATO; NEGRI, 2001).
There
is, thus, an attempt to re-appropriation of Marx's theory as producing a
"cycle" extended not only related to industrial production, but also
the formation of a collective of workers interrelated for producing consumer
knowledge, which would refer to the prospect of reconfiguration of the general
intellect (general intellect). Accordingly, the traditional industry, as an
organization locus of political resistance, would give rise to large company, a
factory society, (i.e. production / consumption / distribution) would become
one and the same thing that synthesizes the immaterial production.
This
production and exploitation of immaterial work goal as a central productive
force would be radicalized to universalize the exploitation of the worker's
subjectivity, making play the real assumption of their social status. As
indicated Lazzarato: "It is immaterial work that activates and organizes
social production / consumption ratio. The trigger both productive cooperation
and the social relationship with the consumer, is materialized in this
communication process (and, therefore, work and consumption).
Still,
the appropriation of immaterial work concept ends up being mediated by the
individual figure, or rather the isolated worker. There is, as a result, the
naturalization of what would be the full and conscious of their actions worker.
Accordingly, the craftsman, with the control of the work process is the figure
to be rescued from the past. The only able to acquire a political awareness of
its becoming. The consumer producer is therefore stuck in analogy to the
artisan as a full employee, and is now referred to as potential political
subject in the context of a producer society of immaterial goods.
In
practice, the changing forms of labor exploitation would result in the
restoration of the content of qualifications required to forms of commodity
production. However, today, these contents, forming a specific subjectivity,
endow certain workers to form an anti-capitalist type of political struggle. To
buy, to consume information within the production process, would create a
process of political resistance. The political struggle was in these terms
placed in retail.
The
crowd, a central concept to define the policy Negri, is related not to the
group of workers, but the consumer worker isolated, that the accession to the
specialization of labor process, (i.e. retraining could contribute to the
densification of social ties), to strengthen the social fabric integrating the
political activity in the crowd. This would create what we might name of unlinked
individuals corporation of their work or in terms of Negri, what would be the
"biopower".
Biopower,
in Negri’s terms, indicating the end of the state, so the forms of
representation of institutionalized and clandestine politics and between the lines
confirm the place of large corporations as synthesis and expression of the
contemporary way of life.
The
policy, for Negri, is defined then as a set of isolated actions, dispersed in
"crowd." Each individual becomes a political subject at the time of
production or consumption of goods information. Only at this time is that the
individual could tune into the "global society". The policy on the
market and the integration of politicians of all countries would be entangled
by the conscious purchase of new products. So, here is a complete negation of
the concept of social class and, therefore, an apology consumer producer
citizen as a political subject.
In
this new version of the Messiah, able to transform capitalist society, the
relationship between the qualification and the subjectivity of the central
becomes worker. With the transformation of labor skills, the formation of
anti-capitalist struggle, marked by the incorporation of professional
qualifications is taken, therefore, as a basic assumption of political
intervention and social transformation. The extent of industrial logic to
society would serve a social production no longer attached to the restricted
universe of Taylorism-Fordism production, but immersed in total social
relationship.
Consumption
of information products, immaterial, enlarge social fabric, allowing the
creation of a new anti-capitalist project. Would break the forms of domination
activated by competition and finally the constituent power would manifest
itself as a social power. With this, it would have more sense analytically
characterize a separation between production and circulation. All would be to
Negri, producers. In fact, all have specific functions and turn more functional
would be the same as creating the foundation for a new society.
To
illustrate his criticism, Lazzarato analyzes the formation of this new
subjectivity based on the Japanese factory. Points out, at the expense of it,
for a displacement of "content" of the skilled worker for the
multipurpose worker.
In
his words, "there is a shift from 'contents up', implementation of
decision-making. Responsibility that is required to random automated plant
management and the continuous improvement of the durability and quality of the
product. " There would be, in the process, an internalization of Taylorist
prescriptions to automatic machines, but a new professional framework become
necessary to provide the command to this production line.
6. MEASURING INTANGIBLE CAPITAL
To
enable companies to effectively manage the intellectual capital of the company
and maximize its value creation potential is fundamental, not only
identification and evaluation, but also its measurement that can be performed
by a value share generated by capital intellectual within the company, or
through the relationship between business variables that lead to a certain
amount of intellectual capital.
Objectively,
Kaplan and Norton (1997) argue that what cannot be measured cannot be managed,
showing the importance of identifying and measuring intangible assets. If not
rated, measured by indicators of an element, proper identification is not
possible in your presence and will not be able to control its evolution.
Companies always have employed methods to value their assets, traditionally
financial measures have been the most used to achieve this purpose, however,
the knowledge economy puts of relief that these methods were obsolete and
insufficient to collect the value of assets intangible, therefore, there have
been a large number of methods for the measurement of intangibles. The fact
that there are multiple models indicates the difficulty and tenacity of the
experts of this theme to reveal the value of intellectual capital as well as
the importance awaking among academics the phenomenon of intangibles.
Models
for managing intellectual capital can be classified attend to different
criteria, Luthy (1998) and Williams (2000) grouped in four categories are:
methods of direct intellectual capital, market Capitalization methods, methods
of back on assets, and Scorecard methods. All models have been developed for
private company and several of them later applied to entities in public sector.
It
is understood that almost any of the methods is likely to apply to the public
sector, with the only saved to contemplate spare characteristics that
differentiate to the public-private management. However, it must be borne in
mind that the public sector is not at all homogeneous, the activities of the
member organizations are multiple, virtually cover all economic sectors, legal
forms that can adopt are different, may have a greater or lesser degree
autonomy, funding formulas may also differ.
Although
there is a big goal common to most public entities is to improve citizens'
well-being, there are multiple generic and specific objectives as the efficient
allocation of resources, income redistribution, promote development, improve
people's health, improve safety, etc. Furthermore, the stakeholders
(stakeholders) are different and have their own goals.
Therefore,
would have to analyze the organization in question, determine what are the
objectives to be achieved related to intangibles (see intangible, enhance
intellectual capital, establish a culture of knowledge and learning, improve
quality, achieve excellence, managing strategically, etc.), choose the model
that best suits their characteristics and finally adapt the model to the
organization due to the previously mentioned factors.
Of
the different models, in a preliminary analysis the best suited to the public
sector are the so-called "scorecard methods." In fact, according to
the literature reviewed and published experiments, most of the models used in
the administration belong to this group, although there are also many designs
that are team own, company or people who have implemented the same way that It
occurs in the private sector.
Internationally
the three most popular models are the Scorecard Report, translated into Spanish
as Frame Integral Command, the Intangible Asset Monitor and the Skandia
Navigator. In this sense Chaminade and Cañibano (2004) show that among the most
popular methods are the Framework for Comprehensive Control (BSC) Kaplan and
Norton (1992, 2000), Intellectual Capital Assets Monitor (SVEIBY,1997) and
Navigator (EDVINSSON; MALONNE,1997).
In
turn, Viedma (2002) states that these three models symbolize the most
representative methodology of regular theory of intellectual capital, according
to Adrienssen (2001), and constitute the foundations of the current paradigm of
intellectual capital. In many countries the majority of public organizations
that have deployed some initiative to manage the intangible conducted from the
perspective of excellence and quality, and therefore are based on quality
systems.
7. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Public
administration must respond to rights deriving from society transformation and
citizen demands, standing in the center of their decisions. For this management
should be more competitive, to increase the satisfaction of citizens and
stakeholders, improving the provision of services by detecting what are the
good management practices and hence aspects should be modified in order to
obtain excellent results.
This
perspective leads to redefine the civil service and the public service from the
new approach, which requires to know that assets related to information,
knowledge, talent and organizational learning have public authorities, seeking
mechanisms to know and measure the value of knowledge and public intellectual
capital, to learn how to create, transform and transmit, and thus to carry out
an efficient and effective management of these resources.
It
is important to note the difference of the characteristics theses of immaterial
labor as the main productive force, that the logic of capital has, in aspects
that are usually identified as economic, synthesis. Nevertheless, it is
impossible to arrest a "sphere" of economic isolation. The economy is
only a theoretical construction of a reality that needs to be "cut"
to be perhaps rebuilt. There is, therefore, the "economic" or
"political" in its pure form.
The
synthesis governed by capital in the figure of the economic, the relationship
circulation production of goods, is the expression of a synthesis of different
elements that gain economic representation. In this process it is basic to rely
on an intellectual capital model that facilitates the measurement and
management of intangible assets, which is why we present in this paper a
proposal of model based on the methodology formulated by Scorecard balance and
(MERITUM, 2002).
Thus,
part of the mission model that proposed the organization and vision about what
you want to become to propose a set of strategic objectives. The terminology
then to describe the different capital is adopted by Intellectus model, so that
the components of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital and
relational capital) break down into elements and in turn they are divided into
variables, which are measures, ultimately, by indicators.
REFERENCES
ALBAGLI, S. (2014) Inovação no
capitalismo cognitivo. In: SIQUEIRA, M.; COCCO, G. (orgs.). Por uma política menor: arte, comum e
multidão. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Casa de Rui Barbosa, p. 211-224.
ALBAGLI, S. (2013) Informação,
saber vivo e trabalho imaterial. In: ALBAGLI, Sarita (org.). Fronteiras da Ciência da Informação.
Brasília: IBICT, Cap. 5.
ADRIENSSEN, D. (2001) Weightless wealth. Four modifications to
standard Intellectual Capital theory, paper for the 4th World Congress on
the Management of Intellectual Capital, Hamilton, Ontario Canada, p. 1-10.
AMIT, R.; SCHOEMAKER, P. (1993):
“Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent”, Strategic Management Journal, v.
14, p. 33-46.
BONTIS, N. (2002): “National
intellectual capital index: Intellectual capital development in the Arab
Region, Institute for Intellectual Capital Research, Ontario.
BOSSI, A. et al. (2005) Reflexiones
en torno a la aplicación del capital intelectual en el sector público, Revista Española de Financiación y
Contabilidad, v. XXXIV, n. 124, p. 215-245.
BROOKING, A. (1997) El capital intelectual. El principal activo
de las empresas en el tercer milenio. Paidos Ibérica, Barcelona.
BUENO, E. (1998) El capital
intangible como clave estratégica en la competencia actual, Boletín de Estudios Económicos, nº 164,
August. p. 207-229.
BUENO et al. (2003) La importancia del capital social en la
sociedad del conocimiento. Propuesta de un modelo integrados de capital
intelectual, I Congreso Internacional y Virtual de Intangibles.
CAÑIBANO et al. (2004) Lecturas sobre intangibles y capital intelectual,
AECA, “Directrices para la gestión y difusión de la información sobre
intangibles (informe de capital intelectual)”, p. 237-273, Madrid.
CHAMINADE, C.; CAÑIBANO, L. (2004) Lecturas sobre intangibles y capital
intelectual, AECA, “La gestión de los intangibles y el aprendizaje
empresarial”, p. 163-182, Madrid.
DARROCH, J.; McNAUGHTON, R. (2002)
Examining the link between knowledge management practices and types of
innovation, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, v. 3, n. 3, p. 210-222.
DVINSSON, L.; MALONE,
M. (1997) Intellectual capital realizing
your company´s trade value by finding its hidden brainpower, Harper
Collins, New York.
EUROFORUM (1998)
Proyecto Intelec, Medición del Capital
Intelectual, El Escorial, Madrid.
GORZ, ANDRE.
(2003) O imaterial: conhecimiento,
valor e capital. Tradução Celso Azzn Junior. Annablume, 2005.
GRANT, R. M.
(1996) Dirección estratégica.
Conceptos, técnicas y aplicaciones, Cívitas, Madrid.
KAPLAN, R. S.;
NORTON, D. P. (1992) Balanced Scorecard:
measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, enero-febrero.
KAPLAN, R. S.;
NORTON, D. P. (2000) Cuadro de Mando
Integral (The Balanced
Scorecard).
Gestión 2000, Barcelona, 2ª ed.
LANDAETA et al.
(2004) Capital Intelectual en la
Administración Pública Española: El proyecto SICAP, Revista Electrónica de
Ciencia Administrativa (RECADM), Volumen 03, nº 01, mayo/2004. Access on
01-06-2005. Available at: www.presidentekennedy.br/recadm/
LAZZARATO, M;
NEGRI, A. (2001) Trabalho imaterial.
Formas de vida e produção de subjetividades. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2001.
Capítulo 2.
LATOUR, B.
(1994) On Technical mediation—philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge. v. 3, n.4, p.29-63.
LEV, B. (2003) Intangibles: medición, gestión e
información. Deusto, Barcelona.
LUTHY, D. H.
(1998) Intellectual capital and its
measurement. Available at
www3.bus.osakacu.ac.jp/apira98/archives/pdfs/25.pdf. Access on 12-02-2005.
MERINO, B. et
al. (2004) Capital Intelectual en la
Administración Pública: El caso del Instituto de Estudios Fiscales Madrid,
Februery 2004, nº 21. Access on 01-08-2005 Available at
http://www.madrimasd.org/revista/revista21/investigacion/proyectos1.asp
MERITUM (2002) Guidelines for managing and reporting on
intangibles, Intellectual Capital Report, January, Ed. Fundación Airtel
Vodafone.
NAVAS, E.; ORTIZ
DE URBINA, M. (2002) El Capital Intelectual en la empresa: Análisis de
criterios y clasificación multidimensional, Economía Industrial, n. 346, v. IV, p. 163-171.
KNIGHT, T. et
al. (1993) “Networking as knowledge work: a study of strategic
interorganizational development in the financial services industry”, Journal of management studies, v. 30, n.
6, p. 975-996.
OLEA, M.; SOLÉ,
F. (2002) La formación, la gestión del
conocimiento y los intangibles en las organizaciones, Pedagogía Laboral.
Bases y estrategias para la formación de las organizaciones, Ariel.
PRAHALAD, C. K.;
HAMEL, G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, v. 68, May-June, pp.79-91.
PELUFFO, M.;
CATALÁN, E. (2002) Introducción a la
gestión del conocimiento aplicada al sector público, Instituto
Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Planificación Económica y Social, August 2002.
RAMIREZ, Y.
(2010) Intellectual capital models in Spanish public sector, Journal of Intellectual Capital, v. 11,
n. 2, p. 248-264.
ROOS, G.; ROOS,
J. (1997) Measuring your company's intellectual performance, Long Range Planning, v. 30, n. 3.
SALAS, V. (1996)
Economía y gestión de activos intangibles, Economía
Industrial, n. 307, p. 17-24.
SANCHEZ, P.
(2008) Papel de los Intangibles y del
Capital Intelectual en la creación y difusión del conocimiento en las
organizaciones. Situación actual y retos de futuro, ARBOR CLXXXIV 732
July-Aug, p. 575-594.
SHAW, E. (1999):
“A guide to the Qualitative Research Process: Evidence from a small firm
study”, Qualitative market research: An
International Journal, v. 2, p. 57-70.
SUAREZ, M.
(2003) Intangibles. Determinantes
psicológicos en contabilidad, I congreso internacional y virtual de
intangibles, junio 2003. Access on 04-04-2005 available at
http://psicondec.rediris.es/abstract/index.html
SVEIBY, K. E.
(1997) The intangible assets monitor, Journal
of human resource
costing and accounting, v. 2, n. 1, spring, p. 73-97.
TRUJILLO;
RODRIGUEZ (2003) Las nuevas herramientas
de gestión de los intangibles: una aplicación al sector de la automoción,
Madrid+, nº 16, April-May 2003.
VIEDMA et al.
(2004) La gestión del capital
intelectual en Mataró, Medición, control y gestión de los intangibles, p.
201- 225, Deusto, Barcelona.
VIEDMA, J. M.
(2001) ICBS Innovation Capability Benchmarking System, World
Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings, Butterworth
Heinemann, p. 243-265.
VIEDMA, J. M.
(2000) Gestión del Conocimiento y del capital intelectual, Ponencia en el 2º y
3er. World Congress on Intellectual
Capital and Innovation, en Hamilton, Ontario (Canadá).
VIEDMA, J. M.
(2002) Nuevas aportaciones en la
construcción del paradigma del capital intelectual, access on 15-01-2005
available at http://gestiondelcapitalintectual.com
WILLIAMS, M.
(2000) Is a company’s intellectual capital performance and intelectual capital
disclosure practices related? Evidence from publicly listed companies from the
FTSE 100. Paper presentado en McMasters
Intellectual Capital Conference, January 2001, Toronto.