Kaufmann 2004

Journal of Intellectual Capital
Intangibles: A synthesis of current research

Lutz Kaufmann Yvonne Schneider
Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lutz Kaufmann Yvonne Schneider, (2004),"Intangibles: A synthesis of current research", Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 366 - 388
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930410550354
Downloaded on: 09 September 2014, At: 05:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2138 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Daniela Carlucci, Antonio Lerro, Ildio Toms Lopes, (2010),"Towards a complementary intangibles
reporting approach", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 Iss 4 pp. 24-34
Paloma Snchez, Cristina Chaminade, Marta Olea, (2000),"Management of intangibles An attempt to
build a theory", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 Iss 4 pp. 312-327
Bram Boekestein, (2006),"The relation between intellectual capital and intangible assets of pharmaceutical
companies", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 241-253
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 543661 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
JIC
5,3
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Intangibles
A synthesis of current research
Lutz Kaufmann and Yvonne Schneider
366
WHU Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management, The Herbert Quandt

Endowed Chair for International Management, Vallendar, Germany
Keywords Intellectual capital, Literature, Intangible assets

Abstract Intangibles are becoming increasingly important to the scientific community as well as
the business world. This is mainly due to a highly competitive business environment combined with
exceptionally limited resources and the growing importance of knowledge as a commodity. The
fluctuating differences between market and book values of companies indicate the extent of the
intangibles rising importance. By focusing on major publications since 1997, this paper critically
analyzes current trends and differing views in this field. The publications are analyzed according to
their content and methodologies. Review of the literature clearly shows that most publications in
this area still lack a theoretical foundation. A large number of differing terms and definitions are
present. Much of the literature analyzed here also fails to provide detailed suggestions for the
management of intangibles, be they theory-based or empirically-derived. Discussion of these issues
generally remains on a very abstract level. Research on intangibles is characterized by a large
variety of views and interpretations dominant schools of thought have yet to develop. This
situation offers much opportunity for further research in this important field of management.
Journal of Intellectual Capital

Vol. 5 No. 3, 2004
pp. 366-388
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930410550354
Introduction
The growing interest in intangibles in business life and the scientific community can be
explained by several means. From the business perspective, companies are increasingly
motivated by external and internal forces to measure and proactively manage their
intangibles. Externally, very little intangible-relevant information is accessible to
external stakeholders (Johanson et al., 2001). While intangibles may not be the only
reason for differences between market and book values (Garcia-Ayuso, 2003), there is a
tendency that financial markets value non-financial assets (Funk, 2003). In times of
strongly limited capital, potential investors are interested in additional information
besides that in annual reports. Providing information on intangibles to potential
investors could therefore create advantages in the competition for capital. The lack of
a sufficient information system for both tangible and intangible assets can result
in improper allocation of resources (Arbeitskreis Immaterielle Werte im
Rechnungswesen der Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft fu r Betriebswirtschaft e.V.
(Working group Intangible assets in accounting of the Schmalenbach Society),
2002). Companies may end up undercapitalized, which in the end may lead to high costs
for the whole economy and cause further unemployment and reduced competitiveness
on a national level (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997).
Internally, missing information on intangibles can lead to a misallocation of
resources on the company level. Historically, companies used executive information
systems (EIS), which were based more or less exclusively on purely financial figures
(Gu and Lev, 2001). More recently, performance measurement systems, which allow
a more holistic view of the company, have been developed, like the Balanced Scorecard
(BSC) (Heisig et al., 2001; Kaplan and Norton, 2001). Besides the BSC, most information
systems still primarily provide information on financials and only incomplete

information about intangibles. Furthermore, these systems offer little information
about the effects of those resources.
Parallel to the business communitys growing interest in intangibles, economic
researchers pay more and more attention to intangibles. Many researchers concentrate
on companies resource development. The arguments developed within the
resource-based view in strategic management and the management accounting
professions increasing recognition of the need to measure intangibles provide further
impetus to the field of research of the management of intangibles.
As intangibles are highly relevant for research and practice, this paper gives a concise
overview of the current literature in this field, which should be of use to both researchers
and practitioners. The paper has two goals. First, it assesses the existing knowledge in
the field and points out which areas dominate the discussion to date. Second, it reveals
blank spots in the existing research, thus offering a platform and directions for further
research. Accordingly, the paper is divided into four parts. After showing the relevance
of intangibles for research and practice in this first part, the methodology used when
analyzing the literature is discussed in the second part. The third part offers an overview
of terms and definitions found in the literature, as well as a comparison of views along
the dimensions of the movement towards interest in intangibles, the measurement and
the management of intangibles. Finally, avenues for future research are discussed in the
fourth part in order to motivate further work on this topic.
The paper is of course limited by the inability to cover all the literature that deals
with intangibles. Capacity time restrictions, space constraints and the problem of
imperfect information narrow the coverage. Nevertheless, this review differs from the
previous ones (Bontis et al., 1999; Brennan and Connell, 2000; Petty and Guthrie, 2000)
in three ways:
(1) it covers only the most recent time span between 1997 and 2003.
(2) it concentrates on literature dealing with the umbrella category of intangibles
and is not limited to a certain type of intangibles, such as knowledge (Bontis
et al., 1999); and
(3) it deals with both measurement and management of intangibles and does not
focus exclusively on a certain discipline such as accounting for intangibles
(Brennan and Connell, 2000).
Methodology of this paper
The following paragraphs discuss the methods used in gathering and analyzing the
existing literature. To select appropriate methods, one must ask what kind of review is
to be performed. Especially within the last few years, different opinions have arisen as
to how a literature review should be structured (Cooper, 1998). One possibility is to
limit the structure of the review according to the nature of the primary data. While case
research syntheses include just empirical findings, theoretical reviews present only
theories (Cooper, 1998). Another distinction can be made between meta-analyses, in
which primary data are statistically evaluated and descriptive reviews, in which
primarily qualitative information is combined and interpreted.
Owing to the character of the existing literature in the field of intangibles,
a descriptive review is most appropriate. The primary data for this review consists of
A synthesis of
current research
367
JIC
5,3
368
a mixture of different kinds of literature and covers a wide variety of features,

including definitions, opinions, and interpretations, some empirical studies, and a
small number of theoretical findings. Meta-analysis is unsuitable to this array of data
because it will not allow us to reach reliable and meaningful results.
As mentioned earlier we have not attempted to cover all publications in this context,
but instead systematically limit the review to the most relevant ones. No general
rule exists as to how many sources should be included in such a review. This matter
is dependent upon the function of the review and the researchers resources
(Cooper, 1998).
Efforts to cover the relevant literature involve several steps. First, one must
determine the nature of the issues and the review with clear criteria for searching and
selecting publications and uniform schemes or standardized protocols for the
interpretation of the data. If these requirements are fulfilled, the literature search stage
can begin. Here, different channels for finding relevant publications must be identified.
This should be followed by data evaluation and analysis with the help of appropriate
criteria and protocols. Finally, the results are interpreted and presented. (For further
details of the steps in preparing a literature review (Cooper, 1998; Fink, 1998).
In the case of intangibles, the challenge is to identify the most relevant and current
literature in order to organize prior research and to prioritize future directions for
investigation. Some basic criteria were defined to narrow the search. The search
focused on literature in English and German language. To reduce bias, published
articles and books, working papers, and conference proceedings were included to cover
a very broad range of the actual debate. The search was performed through different
channels and included several steps. First, the terms intangibles, intangible assets,
intellectual capital, and intellectual property were used as key terms in searching
electronic bibliographic databases, such as EBSCO host research databases and WISO
Net, as well as general digital library catalogues. The searches were performed
iteratively during the period from May 2002 to May 2003. To narrow the search just
terms relating to the umbrella category intangibles were used, rather than search
terms relating to subcategories like brands or patents. The electronic searches were
complemented by a manual search covering major business journals, including
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR),
Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ), Harvard Business Review (HBR), Journal of
International Business Studies (JIBS) or Strategic Management Journal (SMJ).
In the next step, we looked for dominating papers and/or authors in this field.
To achieve this goal, we merged the reference sections of the literature identified in
step one. All references were counted so as to note multiple appearances. In fact,
a number of papers were cited in most of the other publications. For example, the
authors Baruch Lev, Leif Edvinsson, Peer Bukh, and Erik Brynjolfsson are frequently
cited.
In addition to formal channels we also used informal channels to find information.
After analyzing the work of frequently cited authors (e.g. Peer Bukh) in detail, the
authors were contacted in person to obtain their latest papers.
As mentioned earlier, the literature included in this paper is very current, frequently
in the form of working papers, and it is of high relevance, as indicated by the
high rate of citations in different publications found in the first step of the search.
To further guarantee the currency of the literature analyzed in the last step, the latest
and new articles were selected from some of the authors who had published several
within the last few years (e.g. Bukh). Additionally, some papers that focused on
subcategories of intangibles were included when analysis of their content indicated
that they took a broad orientation and that they discussed all categories of intangibles
(Kriegbaum, 2001).
In summary, the search can be characterized as a combined electronic and manual
search, further developed through a quantitative analysis of references and the
consultation of experts. The result is a compilation of the most recent publications by
authors who seem to have a significant influence on the research community.
As mentioned above, the first steps of problem formulation, criteria selection, and
literature search are followed by data evaluation, analysis, and interpretation.
Therefore, as a next step, schemes and standardized protocols were developed and
used to organize the publications that were included in the review.
Different dimensions of intangibles
The search for literature yielded 36 publications to be used in the final review. Table I
shows those 36 papers and books sorted in alphabetic order by the first authors last
name.
The data evaluation offers some remarkable information at first glance. Most of the
literature has already been published; however 14 per cent (or five papers) are working
papers. Most of the work was published between 1999 and 2003. As is obvious from
Table I, just five of the papers were published between 1997 and 1998.
Examination of orientation and methodology showed significant differences among
the publications. A high proportion of the analyzed literature has a strong tendency
towards theoretical research. Around 60 per cent of the literature includes theoretical
explanations with few practical examples. Only a small proportion focuses on
managerial implications. It is very common to offer conceptual explanations and to
illustrate them with the help of examples from specific companies (Sveiby (1997) who
uses WM-data as an example or Stewart (1998) who refers to Microsoft). Most of the
examples used are from software or consulting industries. Some publications use
public data and national statistics (Yang and Brynjolfsson, 2001). Just a small number
of the articles provide information about the authors own empirical work. Very often
those are a part of a comprehensive research project that integrates different
researchers and is funded by a public organization (Canibano et al., 1999; Johanson
et al., 2001; Sanchez et al., 2000).
Just one case (Michalisin et al., 2000) focuses on large companies. In many others
the authors seem to assume that large firms are the matter at hand in researching
intangibles, even if they do not explicitly state this assumption (Gu and Lev, 2001).
Another dimension for comparison is regional focus. Some publications that refer to
a particular region concentrate on the United States or especially on Scandinavia
(Chan et al., 2001; Edvinsson, 1997; Mouritsen et al., 2002; Sveiby, 1997; Yang and
Brynjolfsson, 2001). This may be interpreted as indicating a high interest in this
topic in these regions. In general, avid interest can be identified among
Scandinavian researchers. This is consonant with the relatively large amount of
experience that Scandinavian companies have in dealing with intangibles
(Mouritsen et al., 2002). However, the latest publications indicate a growing
interest in the Spanish region (Ordonez de Pablos, 2003; Garcia-Ayuso, 2003).
A synthesis of
current research
369
JIC
5,3
Author
Title
AK Immaterielle Werte im
Rechnungswesen der SG
370
Bonfour, A.
Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.; Jacobsen, K.;
Roos, G.
Kategorisierung und bilanzielle Erfassung

immaterieller Werte (Categorization and
financial coverage of immaterial values)
The management of intangibles
The knowledge toolbox: a review of the
tools available to measure and manage
intangible resources
Intellectual capital: current issues and
policy implications
Constructing intellectual capital
statements
Research and knowledge interaction:
guidelines for intellectual capital
reporting
Measuring intangibles to understand and
improve innovation management
The stock market valuation of research
and development expenditures
Werttreiber Intangible Assets: Brauchen
wir ein neues Rechnungswesen und
Controlling? Ein Ansatz fur ein
verbessertes Managementsystem (Value
Drivers Intangible Assets: Do we need a
new accounting system? An approach
toward an improved management system)
Developing intellectual capital at Skandia
Intellectual capital the proven way to
establish your companys real value by
measuring its hidden brainpower
Sustainability and performance
Factors explaining the inefficient
valuation of intangibles
The Economics and management of
intellectual property
The knowledge-based view of the firm:
implications for management practice
Intangible assets measurement, drivers,
usefulness
Steuerung von immateriellen Werten im
Rahmen des wertorientierten Controlling
(Controlling intangible assets under
the framework of value-based
management)
Profiting from intellectual
capital learning from leading
companies
Intellectual capital
Measuring to understand intangible
performance drivers
Brennan, N.; Connell, B.

Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T. Mouritsen, J.
Bukh, P.N.; Johanson, U.
Canibano, L.; Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.;
Olea, M.; Escobar, C.G.; Garcia-Ayuso, M.
Chan, L.K.; Lakonishok, J.; Sougiannis, T.
Daum, J.H.
Edvinsson, L.
Edvinsson, L.; Malone, M.S.
Funk, K.
Garcia-Ayuso, M.
Granstrand, O.
Grant, R.M.
Gu, F.; Lev, B.
Gunther, T.
Harrison, S.; Sullivan Sr, P.H.

Heisig, P.; Vorbeck, J.; Niebuhr, J.
Johanson, U.; Martensson, M.; Skoog, M.I.
Table I.
Publications included in
the literature review
Year
2001
2003
1999
2000
2001
2003
1999
2001
2002
1997
1997
2003
2003
1999
1997
2001
2001
2000
2001
2001
(continued)
Author
Title
Year
Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P.

Kriegbaum, C.
The strategy-focused organization

Markencontrolling: Bewertung und
Steuerung von Marken als immaterielle
Vermogenswerte im Rahmen eines
wertorientierten Controlling (Brand
controlling Evaluation and controlling
of brands as intangible assets under the
framework of valuebased management)
Intangibles management, measurement,
and reporting
Intangible strategic assets and firm
performance: A multi-industry study of
the resourced-based view
Developing and managing knowledge
through intellectual capital statements
Getting a grip on intangible assets
Intellectual capital reporting in Spain: a
comparative view
Intellectual capital literature review
measurement, reporting and management
Managing intellectual capital from
theory to practice
The nature and role of IC rethinking the
process of value creation and sustained
enterprise growth
Management of intangibles an attempt
to build a theory
Intellectual capital the new wealth of
organizations
Value-driven intellectual capital how
to convert corporate assets into market
value
The new organizational wealth
managing and measuring
knowledge-based assets
Australia: an under performing
knowledge nation?
Intangible assets and growth accounting:
evidence from computer investments
2001
Lev, B.
Michalisin, M.l.D.; Kline, D.M.;
Smith, R.D.
Mouritsen, J.; Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.;
Johansen, M.R.
N.N.
Ordonez de Pablos, P.
Petty, R.; Guthrie, J.
Rastogi, P.N.
Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.; Olea, M.
Stewart,T.A.
Sullivan, P.H.
Sveiby, K.E.
Wood, J.
Yang, S. Brynjolfsson, E.
A synthesis of
current research
371
2001
2001
2000
2002
2001
2003
2002
1999
2003
2000
1998
2000
1997
2003
2001
According to those publications the development in Spain is in an early stage.

So far, only few firms are concerned about publishing intellectual capital reports.
This is especially true if compared to Scandinavian companies (Bukh and Johanson,
2003).
Definitions of intangibles
As in many other fields of research, a large amount of competing terminology exists.
Despite researchers high level of interest in this topic, no consensus on one set of terms
and definitions or even a tendency towards one stream is obvious. Terms used
Table I.
JIC
5,3
372
Table II.
Terms and definitions
Author
Year
Term/Concept
Definition
Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.;

Mouritsen, J.
2001
2003
2000
Edvinsson, L.
Harrison, S.;
Sullivan Sr, P. H.
Heisig, P.; Vorbeck, J.;
Niebuhr, J.
Mouritsen, J.; Bukh, P.N.;
Larsen, H.T.; Johansen, M.R.
1997
2000
2001
IC is not one thing, it is fragile

construct, which has to be
continuously supported and held
together by a whole array of
interrelated elements, p. 88
No definition, authors concentrate
on reporting
the knowledge-based equity of a
company, p.1
No definition
...knowledge that can be converted
into profit, p.34
IC is valuable, yet invisible, p 60
2002
1999
1997
and
Intangible assets
2003
Intellectual Capital
2002
Rastogi, P.N.
2003
IC is not a conventional
accounting or economic term. It
may be an effect, it may be a
departmental strategy, it may be a
mathematical formula, pp. 10-11
No own definition; authors state
that knowledge management is
about the management of the
intellectual capital controlled by a
company, p.18
Intangible assets are those that
have no physical existence but
are still of value to the company.
p. 22
A broad definition of intellectual
capital states that it is the
difference between the
companys market value and its
book value. Knowledge based
resources that contribute to the
sustained competitive advantage
of the firm form intellectual
capital. p. 63
IC as the economic value of two
categories of intangible assets of a
company, p. 158. Authors name as
categories organisation and human
capital
IC may properly be viewed as the
holistic or meta-level capability of
an enterprise to co-ordinate,
orchestrate, and deploy its
knowledge resources towards
creating value in pursuit of its
future vision. p. 230
(continued)
Author
Year
Term/Concept
Stewart, T.A.
1998
Sullivan, P.H.
2000
Wood, J.
2003
Bonfour, A.
2003
Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.;

Jacobsen, K.; Roos, G.
1999
Canibano, L.; Sanchez, P.;

Chaminade, C.; Olea, M.;
Escobar, C.G.;
Garcia-Ayuso, M.
Daum, J.H.
1999
2002
Funk, K.
2003
Garcia-Ayuso, M.
Johanson, U.;
Martensson, M.; Skoog, M.I.
Lev, B.
2003
2001
Gu, F.; Lev, B.
2001
Sveiby, K.E.
1997
2001
Definition
IC is intellectual material
knowledge, information,
intellectual property, experience
that can be put to use to create
wealth collective brainpower,
p. XI
IC is knowledge that can be
converted into profit, p. 228
no definition, states that IC is
information in peoples minds
Intangibles
no definition, states that the
definition has a strong influence on
the measurement and evaluation of
intangibles
Intangible resources, IC is quite simple the collection of
intangible resources and their
flows, intangible resources is any
as a subcategory
factor that contributes to the value
generating processes of the
company, p. 397
Intangibles
Adjective that goes along with
various concepts as resources and
investments, authors name
existing definitions
Intangible assets & No definition; names different
kinds of intangibles, such as
human capital and knowledge
Intangibles
No definition, mentions
management credibility,
innovativeness, brand identity,
ability to attract talents, research
leadership, social and
environmental responsibility
Intangibles
No definition
Intangibles
No own definition; authors name
and compare existing ones
Intangibles
An intangible asset is a claim
to future benefit that does not
have a physical or financial
(a stock or a bond) embodiment,
p. 5
Intangible assets
Intangibles are defined by
their major drivers. Authors
name R&D, advertising, IT and
human resource practices as
drivers
Intangible asset
Defines intangibles over its three
categories, all are derived from an
organizations personnel
(continued)
A synthesis of
current research
373
Table II.
JIC
5,3
374
Table II.
Author
Year
Term/Concept
Definition
N.N.
2001
Intangible Assets
Yang, S.; Brynjolfsson, E.
2001
Intangible assets
Michalisin, M.l D.;

Kline, D.M.; Smith, R.D.
2000
Intangible resources
Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.;

Olea, M.
2000
Intangibles
Granstrand, O.
1999
Intellectual property
Gunther, T.
2001
Immaterial values
Kriegbaum, C.
2001
Immaterial values
2001
Immaterial values
Grant, R.M.
1997
no term
2001
no term
Chan, L.K.; Lakonishok, J.;

Sougiannis, T.
2001
no term
Intangible assets are non current,

nonfinancial claims to future
benefits that lack a physical or
financial form, p. 6
No definition, just a statement that
intangible assets are costly to
create and create a stream of
expected benefits over period of
years
No clear definition, just
differentiation between terms;
intangibles lack of imitability
Differentiation between intangible
resources which can be measured a
one moment and intangible
activities that arise during a period
of time
IP is property directly related to
the creativity, knowledge and the
identity of an individual
No definition; names different
kinds of intangibles such as brands
and patents
Author states that immaterial
values are as physically not
embodied financial goods. Their
nature is not monetary. They are
an economic advantage for the
company
Negative description:
non-monetary values without
physical appearance
No definition; covers only
knowledge
No definition, just separate
financial performance measure and
non-financial performance
measures
No definition; cover only R&D and
advertising
include, but are not limited to, the following: intangibles, intangible assets, intangible
capital, intangible resources, intellectual capital, and intellectual property (Table II).
There is not only a large variety of terms but also a wide spectrum of definitions for
each term in the literature. In some cases the definitions remain on very abstract levels
and offer little help for practitioners or researchers. Table II shows that four different
groups of terms (intangibles, intellectual capital, intellectual property, no term) were
found in the literature. Most authors definitions regardless of the term used
include knowledge in some way and refer to some form of economic value that is
attached to intangible assets.
Bukh et al. (2001, p. 88) state that no unique definition for intellectual capital exists;
they claim, it is a fragile construct, which has to be continuously supported and held
together by a whole array of interrelated elements. In an attempt to develop and
manage intellectual capital (IC) for the Swedish insurance company Skandia,
Edvinsson and his colleagues have modified their definitions several times (Edvinsson,
1997, pp. 368-9). According to their interpretation, IC is not an objective thing, but a
relationship issue and a debt item, which is borrowed from the customers and
employees (Edvinsson, 1997, pp. 372-68).
Frequently, authors also point to the profit generation potential of intangibles. For
example, Sullivan (2000, p. 228), calls intangibles as . . .knowledge that can be
converted into profit. and Lev (2001, p. 5) claims that An intangible asset is a claim to
future benefits. . ..
Many researchers use the term IC instead of intangibles. However, both often refer
to the same context and content (Bukh et al., 2001).
Gu and Lev (2001, p. 14) name five different subgroups of intangibles, namely
research and development, advertising, capital expenditure, information systems, and
technology acquisition. According to these authors, the definition of an intangible asset
as a claim to future benefits that does not have a physical or financial (a stock or a
bond) embodiment (Lev, 2001, p. 5) describes the term intangibles quite well and
shows its very specific character. In this paper, we use the term intangibles and follow
Levs definition of intangibles as entitlements to future benefits without physical form
(Lev, 2001, p. 5).
Intangibles are characterized by a set of attributes. They tend to lack the classical
bottleneck characteristics, they reach the expected economies of scale quickly, and
often they show network effects (Daum, 2002). Additionally, they may be characterized
by various occurrences within the group of intangibles, missing physical and/or
financial/monetary attitudes, partial accountability, claims for future incomes, limited
tradability, and a partially missing market.
In summary, in most cases one of the terms intangibles or intellectual capital is
used, and most definitions refer to knowledge and/or state that intangibles constitute
claims to future benefits.
Categorization of intangibles
After the problem of choosing an appropriate term and defining intangibles, the
question how to structure or to categorize them arises. Similar to the diversity of terms
and definitions, various groups or categorizations of intangibles have been attempted.
Table III provides an overview of different approaches.
One classification that seems to have strongly influenced other researchers
(Stewart, 1998, Mouritsen et al., 2002) is that of Edvinsson, according to whom IC is
composed of human capital and structural capital (Edvinsson, 1997; Edvinsson and
Malone, 1997).
Bukh et al. (2001) compare various taxonomies of IC and conclude that they all have
three things in common:
(1) the connection to employees;
(2) to processes and structures, and;
(3) to customers.
A synthesis of
current research
375
JIC
5,3
376
Table III.
Categorizations of
intangibles
Author
Year
Categorization of different kinds of

intangibles
Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.; Jacobsen, K.;

Roos, G.
1999
Human capital, structural capital
2000
Internal structure, external structure and

human capital
Human capital, structural capital,
relational capital
Human capital and structural capital
Creativity, knowledge, identity of
individuals
External structure, internal structure,
employee competence
Human capital, intellectual assets that
includes intellectual property
Authors refer to the categorization into
three classes: human capital,
organisational capital, customer capital
Human capital, relational capital,
organizational capital
Organizational (structural) capital, human
capital
States that no explicit categorization is
possible, IC is influenced by human
capital, social capital and knowledge
management
Human capital, structural capital,
relational capital
Human capital, customer capital,
structural capital
Human capital leads to intellectual assets
which include intellectual property
Internal structure, external structure and
competence of personnel
Seven FASB categories
Seven categories: innovation capital,
human capital, customer capital, supplier
capital, investor capital, process capital,
location capital
Differentiation immaterial values:
protectable and non-protectable values or
identificable and non-identificable values
Discovery, organizational practices,
human resources
Five drivers of intangibles (R&D,
advertising, IT, hr-practices)
Concentration most important intangibles
for companies success: reputation,
know-how, organizational culture
Compare different categorizations
(Brooking, Sveiby, Sullivan)

Granstrand, O.
1999
1997
1999
Gunther, T.
2001
Harrison, S.; Sullivan Sr, P.H.
2000

Johansen, M.R.
2002
2003
2002
Rastogi, P.N.
2003
2000
Stewart, T.A.
1998
Sullivan, P.H.
2000
Sveiby, K.E.
1997
N.N.
2001
2001
Kriegbaum, C.
2001
Lev, B.
2001
Gu, F.; Lev, B.
2001
Michalisin, M.l D.; Kline, D.M.;

Smith, R.D.
2000
2001
(continued)
Author
Year
Johanson, U.; Martensson, M.; Skoog, M.I
2001
Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.; Mouritsen, J.
2001
Bonfour, A.
2003
2003
2001
Daum, J.H.
Edvinsson, L.
Funk, K.
Garcia-Ayuso, M.
Grant, R.M.
2002
1997
2003
2003
1997
2001

Wood, J.
1999
2003
2001
Categorization of different kinds of

intangibles
Authors summarize different ways of
categorizations developed by other
researchers
Authors show different categorizations,
claim there is no unique one
No own categorization, cites different ones
No categorization, authors concentrate on
reporting
No categorization, just R&D and
advertising
No categorization
No categorization
No categorization
No categorization
No categorization
No categorization, but four perspectives:
financial perspective, customer
perspective, internal business perspective,
innovation and learning perspective
No categorization
No categorization
No categorization, give examples like new
business processes, firm-specific human
capital, managerial know-how
Rastogi (2003) concludes that a categorization of IC is hardly possible. However, he

states that IC is the result of interaction between a firms knowledge management, its
social capital and human capital.
Sveiby was one of the pioneers in this field. He proposed the classification of
intangibles into employee competence, internal structure, and external structure.
Accordingly, to his knowledge perspective, the intangibles have their roots in the
organizations personnel (Sveiby, 1997).
Despite the usage of different terms, most researchers (Gunther, 2001; Mouritsen
et al., 2002; Sanchez et al., 2000; Stewart, 1998) confirm this classification of three
categories (Table III). Stewart (1998), for example, only renames the three categories,
using the terms human capital, customer capital, and structural capital. Sullivan, who
also separates IC into three categories, draws a clearer line among them. An
organization can own human capital, this leads to the production of codified
knowledge, the firms so-called intellectual assets. Finally, those intellectual assets
include legally-protected intellectual property. These three parts are connected by
a strong relationship (Sullivan, 2000).
In the end, all these categorizations stay at a very abstract level. They do not
offer direct guidance on the management of intangibles. Which goods and resources
belong to each category is also not clear. Furthermore, the categories are usually
quite broad.
Two recent approaches offer more detailed classifications, with more specific
categories. The first was created by the American Financial Accounting Standards
A synthesis of
current research
377
Table III.
JIC
5,3
378
Board (FASB), while the second one originated in the working group on
Intangible Assets in Accounting of the Schmalenbach Society for Business based
in Germany. Both categorizations are rooted in financial reporting and offer seven
categories. The FASB system includes technology, customer, market, workforce,
contract, organization, and statutory-based assets (N.N., 2001). The German group
identifies innovation capital, human capital, customer capital, supplier capital,
investor capital, process capital, and location capital (Arbeitskreis Immaterielle
Werte im Rechnungswesen der Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft fur Betriebswirtschaft
e.V. (Working group Intangible assets in accounting of the Schmalenbach
Society), 2002) (Figure 1). They provide detailed examples, which serve as
guidelines for distinguishing the categories. The FASB-based approach, seems
especially helpful because it involves less overlap among the categories and gives
a more concrete and complete perspective on intangibles that can be applied in the
business context.
Reporting models
A number of models have been developed to measure and manage intangibles. These
models have different purposes. Either they are built for internal purposes, that is, to
help manage intangibles within a company, or for external purposes, which include the
visualization of intangibles and make information more accessible to external
stakeholders, primarily investors.
It is not clear whether the selected papers focus more on internal decision-makers,
who need help in understanding the functionality of intangibles or on the preparation
of information for the external stakeholders in a company. Most of them implicitly
address both aspects, but never explicitly explain their purpose in doing so.
Approaches to the generation and use of information on intangibles vary within the
literature. Scandinavian companies in particular offer good examples of how to deal
with intangibles. The following selected examples indicate how such models can be
structured.
Figure 1.
Categorization of
intangibles by the FASB
and the working group
Intangible Assets in
Accounting of the
Schmalenbach Society
The early work of Edvinsson and Skandia reveals a specific orientation. On one
hand, there is a strong desire to add information to the annual report, and, on
the other, the provided information is mainly addressed to agents within the
company. For example, relationships could be built and interactions enhanced in
order to spur value creation in an organisation through use of intangibles
(Edvinsson, 1997; Ryden and Bredahl, 2003). According to this school of thought,
management primarily has the duty to transform human capital into structural
capital (Edvinsson, 1997).
Another approach that can help managers directly is found in Sveibys work.
He developed a new reporting model, the Intangible Asset Monitor, which has
been used by the Swedish company Celmi, among others. This information scheme
includes indicators referring to the growth, renewal, efficiency, stability, and risk
relating to each of the three categories of intangibles (employee competence, internal
structure, and external structure) (Sveiby, 1997). This method provides a way to
record intangibles with non-monetary indicators and has its roots in knowledge
management (Heisig et al., 2001; Sveiby, 1997).
Stewart created an IC navigator in the form of a radar chart to visualize and
measure the intangibles in a company. Here, each of the three types of
intangibles (human capital, customer capital, and structural capital) is one axis.
This model has the advantage of enabling comparisons between companies
(Stewart, 1998).
The BSC is yet another model that enables the measurement and management
of strategically important intangibles. Across its four perspectives (financials,
customers, internal processes, and learning and growth), the BSC allows
measurement of performance beyond a purely financial perspective (Kaplan
and Norton, 2001). While Kaplan and Norton did not design the BSC for
management of intangibles in particular, it is an approach towards measuring
strategic company performance in a holistic way. An interesting field of
research would be to develop a model that enables internal control of
intangibles as well as offering information for external stakeholders, as the BSC
partly does. This could consist of a general framework for registering and
measuring intangibles with the capacity to adapt the structure to the firms
individual requirements.
These examples demonstrate that attempts to manage intangibles already exist.

However, except for the BSC, their dissemination is quite limited, and they lack
widespread acceptance. In most cases, the models are too qualitative and do not inform
the user as to which special components of a firms intangibles are important to its
strategy. Because of the broad structure of these models, it is rarely clear what is
included in the term intangibles. Another disadvantage is the lack of comparability.
The models offer a wide variety of adaptations to the firms specific situation with the
consequence that each model has a different individual structure and thus, cannot be
directly compared to assessments that are devised in another model. A general
understanding of the definition and composition of intangibles and the development of
a model with underlying uniform standards would be useful. In particular, the
subcategories of intangibles should be defined and concrete examples given in order to
clarify matters.
A synthesis of
current research
379
JIC
5,3
380
Goals of each publication and focal points

In order to find further research gaps and to provide direction for future work, we now
analyze the overall goals of each publication, its theoretical background, and its
specific focus.
The broad range of different orientations in the literature on intangibles is not
only due to a high number of terms, definitions, and categories. The evaluation of
the literature shows that the individual publications goals differ in their
measurement of intangibles, their intentions to show best practices and to
statistically analyze the relationship between intangibles and stock prices, and
finally, their answers to the question of how to manage intangibles. Table IV gives
further details, showing that the literature can be divided along one of the three
dimensions: The publications either
.
provide a general overview on intangibles;
.
concentrate on the measurement and/or reporting of intangibles; or
.
address how to manage intangibles.
The second dimension dominates the literature, so that a strong affinity towards
measurement can be recognized. The management dimension remains on very abstract
levels.
Publications that concentrate on specific kinds of intangibles tend to emphasize
knowledge (Bounfour, 2003; Bukh et al., 2001; Heisig et al., 2001; Ordonez de Pablos,
2003; Stewart, 1998; Wood, 2003) or, less often, innovation (Canibano et al., 1999). Since
researchers often concentrate on specific kinds of intangibles, it would be interesting to
analyze whether companies have the same priorities regarding intangibles.
Two issues that have been neglected by researchers are the quantitative impact of
intangibles on a companys performance and the relative importance of different
categories of intangibles for investment.
A comparison of the theoretical roots of the publications shows that several
different attempts ( Johanson et al., 2001; Mouritsen et al., 2002) were made to help in
dealing with intangibles, but no broad theoretical basis exists that offers grounded
explanations for the management of intangibles. If reference to a theory can be found
(Grant, 1997), it is usually quite abstract. Often authors talk about the theory of the
knowledge economy, the knowledge-based view or the knowledge-based economy
(Johanson et al., 2001; Mouritsen et al., 2002; Stewart, 1998; Wood, 2003), without
particularly addressing how that theoretical perspective relates to the practical matters
at hand.
Only a few authors refer to the resource-based view (RBV) (Bounfour, 2003;
Grant, 1997; Ordonez de Pablos, 2003; Michalisin et al., 2000). Michalisin et al.
performed an empirical analysis in which they tried to apply the RBV to the
matter of intangibles and company success. While testing the relationships between
intangibles like reputation, know-how, organizational culture, and performance,
they found that the data offered strong support for the RBV, since intangibles
influence the future performance of a company. This lends support to the
resource-based hypothesis that obtaining certain assets leads to higher profits. It
could, especially for practitioners, mean that intangibles such as know-how or
reputation need to be maintained, built-up, selected and developed very carefully
(Michalisin et al., 2000).
Author
Year
Goal
Bonfour, A.
2003

2000
2002
Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.;

Jacobsen, K.; Roos, G.
1999
Harrison, S.; Sullivan Sr, P.
2000
1999
2001
Granstrand, O.
1999
N.N.
2001
2000
Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.; Mouritsen, J.

2001
2003
Garcia-Ayuso, M.
2003
Johanson, U.; Martensson, M.; Skoog, M.
2001
2001
Gu, F.; Lev, B.
2001
Michalisin, M.D.; Kline, D.M.; Smith, R.D.
2000
2003
Sullivan, P.
2000
2001
Daum, J.H.
2002
To provide an overview of intangibles

from a management perspective and an
economic perspective
To review the literature on accounting IC
To review the most significant literature
in this field of research, to open platform
for further research
To compare different tools to manage
knowledge
To evaluate best practices on handling
intangibles in Europe, To give guidelines
to measure intangibles
To demonstrate the experience from
leading companies in this field
To give an overview on the state-of-the-art
of the research in the field of intangibles in
different regions
To give an overview on the state-of-the-art
of the actual movement of intangibles
To show development of intellectual
capitalism
To inform about the mystery of
intangibles
To build a theory to identify, measure, and
monitor intangibles
To develop IC statements
To compare two attempts to develop IC
reporting guidelines and to find fields for
further research
To identify and explain factors causing
inefficient valuation of intangibles and to
find solutions
To find empirical evidence for intangible
performance drivers
To develop a measurement system that
includes more than financial indicators
To measure intangibles and to get a good
resource allocation
To empirically test RBV, to test the
relationship between intangibles and
companies success
To examine the state-of-the-art of
intellectual capital reporting in Spain
To show how to extract value from IC
To give suggestions for the presentation
of immaterial values in the German
accounting system
To check if there is need for a new or
revised financial and management
accounting system
1999
(continued)
A synthesis of
current research
381
Table IV.
Goals of the 36
publications considered
JIC
5,3
382
Table IV.
Author
Year
Goal
1997
Gunther, T.
2001
2001
2001
Edvinsson, L.
1997
Kriegbaum, C.
Grant, R.M.
2001
1997
Funk, K.
2003
Lev, B.
2001

Johansen, M.R.
Rastogi, P.N.
2002
2003
Stewart,T.A.
1998
Sveiby, K.E.
1997
Wood, J.
2003
To revolutionize the accounting system

and show the influence of intangibles on
the worlds economy
To control intangibles in regard to the
shareholder value of the company
To revise the growth accounting
methodology to take into account the
value of intangible assets
To answer whether stock prices
appropriately reflect the value of R&D
To show IC of Skandia to generate future
benefits
To evaluate and control of brands
To show implications for the importance
of knowledge for management practice
To highlight the importance of activities
that aid in achieving sustainability
To show economies of intangibles and to
develop a way to handle them
To manage knowledge with the help of IC
statements
To show the use of IC for sustained
enterprise growth
To show how to manage knowledge and
to how to leverage IC
To manage and to measure intangible
assets
To identify Australias challenges in
knowledge management, its
consequences and possible solutions
Orientation of purposes of the literature

In general, all the publications seem to be oriented towards measuring or providing
information on intangibles instead of managing intangibles or using this new
information. Most aim to provide more knowledge about intangibles, but do not aim to
offer advice on how to manage them.
This is different when the publication focuses on internal motivations for
considering intangibles. In some cases further guidance is provided for managing
intangibles, such as the decision system for optimizing the value of a firms intellectual
capital in Harrison and Sullivan (2000), or the Skandia Navigator for measuring and
managing a companys pool of resources (Edvinsson and Malone, 1997), or a tool for
the evaluation of brands (Kriegbaum, 2001; Bontis et al., 1999; Brennan and Connell,
2000; Petty and Guthrie, 2000).
Even if data on intangibles are internally prepared or used, it is mostly expressed in
terms of non-monetary indicators (Grant, 1997; Petty and Guthrie, 1999; Sanchez et al.,
2000). This complicates the measurability and comparability of different companies
endowment of intangibles. Publications that are characterized by an external
orientation mostly provide information that is expressed in terms of non-monetary
indicators (Daum, 2002; Edvinsson, 1997; Granstrand, 1999; Mouritsen et al., 2002).
Among the internally-oriented approaches, different opinions concerning the

question as to how to manage intangibles for internal purposes exist. Some authors
argue that IC influences the companys organizational structure and strategic activities
rather than its capital market activities (Bukh et al., 2001). This raises the questions of
whether IC is determined by a companys strategy and whether an IC statement might
help to enforce the implementation of that strategy. Empirical studies show that capital
markets are not the only reasons for interest in IC. Most companies are primarily
motivated by the support that intangibles deliver for implementing their strategy
(Bukh et al., 2001). Based on the empirical research, Bukh, Larsen and Mouritsen have
declared that no unique and definitive model of an IC statement can be identified.
The management of intangibles needs to be adapted to each firms specific situation
(Bukh et al., 2001). Despite the need for further advice, various and partly contrary
attempts to develop guidelines for intellectual capital reports exist (Bukh and
Johanson, 2003). This follows from the high complexity and diversity of intangibles.
Their conclusions contrast with other researchers attempts to categorize and order
intangibles (e.g. the FASB approach).
Rather than taking an internal orientation, researchers like Lev prioritize the
measurement of intangibles and their influence on capital markets and investors.
They promote the usage of intangibles for external purposes, such as communication
with investors. Their work discusses the role and influence of intangibles on changes
on capital markets and investors behaviour (Chan et al., 2001; Gu and Lev, 2001). Their
approach has been developed in contrast to traditional measurements, and seems to be
a step towards better understanding and management of intangibles. The model is
based on several estimations, assumptions, and varying definitions, such as the
estimated contribution of physical and financial assets and the forecast of series of
intangibles-driven earnings (Gu and Lev, 2001). It is a concern, however, that the high
number of their assumptions need to be considered quite critical, they could appear to
be somewhat arbitrary, and relying on different assumptions might very well lead to
very different results.
Empirical research indicates that information on intangibles is more relevant for
stock markets and its investors than reported earnings and cash flows. The earnings
stream generated by intangible assets (Intangible Driven Earnings IDE) provides
substantially more relevant information to investors than reported earnings and cash
flows. The reason: while total earnings or cash flows reflect the performance of all
assets, some of which (e.g. various kinds of physical assets) do not contribute to
growth, IDE focus on the contribution of intangibles the major growth contributes.
Also, while earnings and cash flows are strictly historic (backward-looking) measures,
IDE explicitly reflect growth expectations (Gu and Lev, 2001, p. 18). This is a strong
argument for using intangibles as additional information for capital markets and offers
the proponents of this argument a basis on which to build an argument for the
importance of intangibles as an economic resource.
Critique and future prospects

Finally, this paper considers all information collected throughout the review process.
After analyzing the existing research and determining missing information in the
literature, possibilities for future research are outlined.
A synthesis of
current research
383
JIC
5,3
384
The discussion of intangibles needs to be much more explicitly focused. For many
publications, the identity of their real focus is not clear (Granstrand, 1999; Heisig et al.,
2001; Rastogi, 2003). The discussion of intangibles is completely different when
information is needed for internal or external stakeholders (Heisig et al., 2001). It would
therefore, be most helpful if future researchers made it clear from the start whether
their research is intended to improve the internal management of intangibles or to
investigate how external stakeholders are provided with and use information on
intangibles.
The extant literature tends to make general suggestions for the handling of
intangibles (Heisig et al., 2001). The content of these articles (Gu and Lev, 2001;
Rastogi, 2003) remains on a very abstract level. For example, the conclusion that the
management of IC needs to be flexible and adaptive (Rastogi, 2003) offers little advice.
Most of the articles recognize the strong relevance of intangibles, but lack direct
proposals regarding how to manage them (Michalisin et al., 2000). Those articles that
are more concrete and contain a higher proportion of directly applicable knowledge
mostly focus on a specific category of intangibles, such as the valuation of brands
(Gunther, 2001) or knowledge management (Bukh et al., 2001).
Another neglected issue is the allocation of funds for intangibles. Rules for how to
allocate resources are not to be found in the literature. It is still difficult for companies
and investors to decide between different kinds of intangibles, as well as between
investment in intangibles or in tangible resources.
The systems of financial and management accounting need to be improved in order
to enable a direct comparison of investment in intangibles and tangibles. If the
costs and profits could be quantified, the two competing kinds of investments could be
compared and the allocation of resources could be decided in a more efficient and
appropriate manner (Daum, 2002; Neely et al., 2003).
As shown, different ways to measure and visualize intangibles (e.g. IC Navigator,
Intangible Asset Monitor) do exist, but each includes different aspects of intangibles.
Clearly, none of those instruments covers all the important intangibles of all companies
(Stewart, 1998) and a lot of work still needs to be done to provide accurate and complete
measurements. In the field of the management of intangibles, nearly no theory-based
models or frameworks exist that help in explaining how to manage, accumulate, and
preserve intangibles.
Research should concentrate much more on theoretical approaches to explain the
functions of intangibles. Different theories could be investigated; for example,
the resource-based view could help to find explanations and suggestions for the
management of intangibles. According to this view, the resources of a company are
responsible for its competitiveness. This could mean that a large endowment with
intangibles could lead to a competitive advantage.
Since several publications (including the less abstract ones) focus on specific kinds
of intangibles, one is led to wonder whether it is possible to talk about intangibles in
general. Can researchers studying intangibles in general offer suggestions that can be
transferred into business life, or must one focus on a specific kind of intangibles in
order to offer concrete descriptions and suggestions? This then also raises the question
of how to categorize intangibles. A possible solution to this problem could be to create
a theoretical framework for all intangibles that can be adapted to special sub-cases as
the need arises.
Finally, we must critically assess whether dealing with intangibles is an everyday

occurrence in business (Funk, 2003; Heisig et al., 2001) or if it remains merely a concept in
the minds of some specialists. If just specialists are concerned about this topic, it would
be hard to implement better management of intangibles in an organization.
If systems of measuring and managing are adapted to the special attributes of
intangibles putting aside for the moment the fact that there is no concrete knowledge
on how to do that it is questionable whether intangibles are still intangible or if
they have already lost their specific character when they become measurable and
manageable. Managing and measuring intangibles in the same way as tangibles is not
as yet a realistic approach.
Another question that remains unanswerable using the existing literature is
whether it makes sense to perform industry-specific analyses. Some empirical work
shows that traditional industries, such as aerospace, defence and oil and gas, are rich in
intangibles (Gu and Lev, 2001). So it could be very interesting to focus on this issue and
check whether there are strong differences between traditional sectors, like steel, and
new ones, such as multimedia.
The impacts of a dysfunctional management of intangibles on the economy as a
whole (e.g. for labour and capital markets) remain largely neglected (Garcia-Ayuso,
2003). It seems worthwhile to examine or to roughly estimate the monetary value of IC
for national economies in order to visualize its importance. In this context, Edvinsson
and Kivikas (2003, p.164) use the phrase Intellectual Capital as the New Wealth of
Nations.
While discussing the work of other researchers in this field, Bukh et al. (2001) claim
that the community is still quite small and has a strong affinity for cross-referencing
each other. It could be quite interesting to examine the relationships between the
researchers and their cooperation in research projects. Such research would give an
impression of how the different opinions have been developed and where their roots lie.
Conclusion
Other literature reviews have also shown the complexity of the work in the field of
intangibles, but they did not directly raise the question of the theoretical grounding and
practical usefulness of the works considered. Our analysis has shown that few examples
of empirical work exist, and that the literature also generally lacks a theoretical
framework that could be used and tested. The resource-based view is preferred when
theory is applied to the management of intangibles. It could be quite fruitful to
investigate whether other organizational theories could also offer explanations.
This review has shown that the field lacks a standard definition for intangibles or
IC, and that the classification of intangibles into three categories is not sufficient. It has
also shown that nature of reporting models is often too qualitative and fails to provide
concrete help for companies.
The goals of the literature on intangibles are very often too broad and not focused
enough to be helpful in managing intangibles. The cases that concentrate on specific
kinds of intangibles tend to prioritize the study of knowledge as an asset. This is still a
quitebroad field of research that is covered from many different perspectives. Here it
could be asked if it is worthwhile to look more deeply at other kinds of intangibles,
such as the evaluation of customers or brands. Such investigation has the potential to
be very enlightening.
A synthesis of
current research
385
JIC
5,3
386
The literature concentrates on approaches to gain and provide information on

intangibles and fails to describe how to use that information. It would be helpful to
provide more research that can be more practically applied.
Many issues remain unconsidered and offer much potential for future research,
such as:
.
making the goals of research on intangibles explicit and focusing publications
more on specific aspects of intangible management;
.
showing how to use information on intangibles, instead of just providing it;
.
developing a detailed classification of intangibles that helps the business
community to structure the approaches to intangibles within a company;
.
focusing on specific kinds of intangibles besides knowledge;
.
examining potential implications of the stock of intangibles on the economy and
social systems of nations;
.
examining the applicability of organizational theories to the issue of the
management of intangibles;
.
developing a theoretical framework that can be applied to the management of
intangibles;
.
generating a reporting model that allows display and control of all kinds of
intangibles (e.g. to expand the BSC);
.
performing empirical research to investigate the functionality of intangibles.
References
Arbeitskreis Immaterielle Werte im Rechnungswesen der Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft fur
Betriebswirtschaft e.V.(Working group Intangible assets in accounting of the
Schmalenbach Society) (2002), Kategorisierung und bilanzielle Erfassung immaterieller
Werte (Categorization and financial coverage of immaterial values), Der Betrieb, Vol. 54
No. 19 pp. 989-95.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N.C., Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G. (1999), The knowledge toolbox: a review
of the tools available to measure and to manage intangible resources, European
Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 391-402.
Bounfour, A. (2003), The Management of Intangibles, Routledge, London.
Brennan, N. and Connell, B. (2000), Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implications,
paper presented at the 23rd annual congress of the European Accounting Association,
Munich, 29-31 March 2000.
Bukh, P.N. and Johanson, U. (2003), Research and knowledge interaction: Guidelines for
intellectual capital reporting.
Bukh, P.N., Larsen, H.T. and Mouritsen, J. (2001), Constructing intellectual capital statements,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 87-108.
Canibano, L., Sanchez, P., Chaminade, C., Olea, M., Escobar, C.G. and Garcia-Ayuso, M.
(1999), Measuring intangibles to understand and improve innovation management,
working paper, Autonomous University of Madrid/University of Sevilla.
Chan, L.K.C., Lakonishok, J. and Sougiannis, T. (2001), The stock market valuation
of research and development expenditure, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 1 No. 6,
pp. 2431-56.
Cooper, H. (1998), Synthesizing Research, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Daum, J.H. (2002), Werttreiber Intangible Assets: Brauchen wir ein neues Rechnungswesen
und Controlling? Ein Ansatz fur ein verbessertes Managementsystem (Value Drivers
Intangible Assets: Do we need a new accounting system? An approach towardss an
improved management system), Controlling, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-24.
Edvinsson, L. (1997), Developing intellectual capital at Skandia, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 366-73.
Edvinsson, L. and Kivikas, M. (2003), The new longitude perspective for value creation,
Controlling, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 163-7.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997), Intellectual Capital The Proven Way to Establish
Your Companys Real Value by Measuring its Hidden Brainpower, Judy Piatkus Ltd, London.
Fink, A. (1998), Conducting Research Literature Reviews, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Funk, K. (2003), Sustainability and Performance, MIT Sloan Management Review, 44. Jg.,
Heft 2, S. 65-70.
Garcia-Ayuso, M. (2003), Factors explaining the inefficient valuation of intangibles,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Granstrand, O. (1999), The Economics and the Management of Intellectual Property, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Grant, R.M. (1997), The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management
practice, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 450-4.
Gu, F. and Lev, B. (2001), Intangible assets measurement, drivers, usefulness, working paper,
Boston University/New York University.
Gunther, T. (2001), Steuerung von immateriellen Werten im Rahmen des wertorientierten
Controlling (Controlling intangible assets under the framework of value-based
management), Kostenrechnungspraxis No. Sonderheft, 1, pp. 53-62.
Harrison, S. and Sullivan, P.H. (2000), Profiting from intellectual capital learning from leading
companies, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Heisig, P., Vorbeck, J. and Niebuhr, J. (2001), Intellectual capital, in Mertins, K., Heisig, P. and
Vorbeck, J. (Eds), Knowledge Management Best Practices in Europe, Springer, Berlin,
pp. 57-73.
Johanson, U., Martensson, M. and Skoog, M. (2001), Measuring to understand
intangible performance drivers, The European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 407-37.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2001), The Strategy-Focused Organization, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Kriegbaum, C. (2001), Markencontrolling Bewertung und Steuerung von Marken als
immaterielle Vermogenswerte im Rahmen eines unternehmenswertorientierten
Controlling (Brand controlling Evaluation and controlling of brands as intangible
assets under the framework of value-based management), Vahlen, Munchen.
Lev, B. (2001), Intangibles Management, Measurement and Reporting, The Brookings
Institution, Washington, DC.
Michalisin, M.D., Kline, D.M. and Smith, R.D. (2000), Intangible strategic assets and firm
performance: a multi-industry study of the resourced-based view, Journal of Business
Strategies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 91-117.
Mouritsen, J., Bukh, P.N., Larsen, H.T. and Johansen, M.R. (2002), Developing and managing
knowledge through intellectual capital statements, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 10-29.
A synthesis of
current research
387
JIC
5,3
388
N.N. (2001), Getting a grip on intangible assets what they are, why they matter, and
who should be managing them in your organization, Harvard Management Update,
pp. 6-7.
Neely, A., Marr, B., Roos, G., Pike, S. and Gupta, O. (2003), Towardss the third generation of
performance measurement, Controlling, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 129-35.
Ordonez de Pablos, P. (2003), Intellectual capital reporting in Spain: a comparative review,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (1999), Managing intellectual capital from theory to practice,
Australian CPA, pp. 18-21.
Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000), Intellectual capital literature review measurement, reporting
and management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Rastogi, P.N. (2003), The nature and role of IC rethinking the process of value
creation and sustained enterprise growth, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 227-48.
Ryden, M. and Bredahl, A-C. (2003), Implementing strategic planning with the Skandia
Navigator, Controlling, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 169-74.
Sanchez, P., Chaminade, C. and Olea, M. (2000), Management of intangibles an attempt to build
a theory, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 312-27.
Stewart, T.A. (1998), Intellectual Capital The New Wealth of Organizations, 1st ed., Nicolas
Brealey Publishing, London.
Sullivan, P.H. (2000), Value-Driven Intellectual Capital How to Convert Corporate Assets into
Market Value, Wiley, New York, NY.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth Managing and Measuring
Knowledge-based Assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Wood, J. (2003), Australia: an under performing knowledge nation?, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 144-64.
Yang, S. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2001), Intangible assets and growth accounting: evidence from
computer investments, working paper, New York University/Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
This article has been cited by:

1. Maria Crema, Chiara Verbano. 2014. Managing Intellectual Capital in Italian Manufacturing SMEs.
Creativity and Innovation Management n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
2. Eduardo Bueno, M Paz Salmador, Mnica Longo-Somoza. 2014. Advances in the identification and
measurement of Intellectual Capital and future developments in the Intellectual Capital research agenda:
experience of the Intellectus Model and proposal of a synthetic index. Knowledge Management Research
& Practice 12, 339-349. [CrossRef]
3. Giuseppe Marzo. 2014. Some Unintended Consequences of Metaphors: The Case of Capital in Intellectual
Capital Research. FINANCIAL REPORTING 111-140. [CrossRef]
4. Alain Daou, Egide Karuranga, Zhan Su. 2014. Towards a better understanding of intellectual capital in
Mexican SMEs. Journal of Intellectual Capital 15:2, 316-332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Benjamin Matthies. 2014. Process Capital: A Synthesis of Research and Future Prospects. Knowledge and
Process Management 21:2, 91-102. [CrossRef]
6. Jose Domingo Garca-Merino, Lidia Garca-Zambrano, Arturo Rodriguez-Castellanos. 2014. Impact of
Relational Capital on Business Value. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 13:01, 1450002.
[CrossRef]
7. Aristides Isidoro Ferreira. 2014. Competing Values Framework and its impact on the intellectual capital
dimensions: evidence from different Portuguese organizational sectors. Knowledge Management Research
& Practice 12:1, 86-96. [CrossRef]
8. Dumay John. 2014. 15 years of the Journal of Intellectual Capital and counting. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 15:1, 2-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Marzo Giuseppe. 2014. Improving internal consistency in IC research and practice: IC and the theory of
the firm. Journal of Intellectual Capital 15:1, 38-64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Petros A. Kostagiolas. 2013. Managing knowledge capital in public libraries for a knowledge-driven
socioeconomic environment. Library Management 34:8/9, 677-689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis. 2013. Investigating the current state and impact of the intellectual capital
academic discipline. Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:4, 476-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Yolanda Ramrez-Crcoles, Montserrat Manzaneque-Lizano. 2013. The relevance of intellectual capital
disclosure: empirical evidence from Spanish universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice .
[CrossRef]
13. Esther Hormiga, Connie Hancock, Jaume Valls-Pasola. 2013. Intellectual capital and new ventures: the
entrepreneur's cognizance of company management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 11:2,
208-218. [CrossRef]
14. Federica De Santis, Marco Giuliani. 2013. A look on the other side: investigating intellectual liabilities.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:2, 212-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Stevo Janoevi, Vladimir Denopoljac, Nick Bontis. 2013. Intellectual Capital and Financial Performance
in Serbia. Knowledge and Process Management 20:1, 1-11. [CrossRef]
16. Yuri Biondi, Antoine Rebrioux. 2012. The governance of intangibles: Rethinking financial reporting and
the board of directors. Accounting Forum 36:4, 279-293. [CrossRef]
17. Caroline Hussler, Julien Pnin, Michael Dietrich, Thierry BurgerHelmchen, Yuri Biondi, Pierpaolo
Giannoccolo. 2012. Complementarities and coopetition in presence of intangible resources. Journal of
Strategy and Management 5:4, 437-449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Subhash Abhayawansa, James Guthrie. 2012. Intellectual capital information and stock recommendations:
impression management?. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:3, 398-415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Michele Grimaldi, Livio Cricelli, Francesco Rogo. 2012. A methodology to assess value creation in
communities of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:3, 305-330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Abdulrahman Anam Ousama, AbdulHamid Fatima, Abdul Rashid HafizMajdi. 2012. Determinants of
intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 2:2, 119-139. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
21. Christian Nielsen, Gunnar Rimmel, Johan Dergrd, Kristina Jonll. 2012. Human resources disclosure
in Danish intellectual capital statements. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 16:2, 112-141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Karam Pal, Sushila Soriya. 2012. IC performance of Indian pharmaceutical and textile industry. Journal
of Intellectual Capital 13:1, 120-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. References 185-204. [CrossRef]
24. Jonas Mackeviius, Jolita Jarmalait. 2011. Nematerialieji itekliai kaip apskaitos objektas: samprata,
pripainimas ir klasifikavimas. Verslo ir teiss aktualijos 6:2, 302-318. [CrossRef]
25. Taegoo (Terry) Kim, Joanne Jung-Eun Yoo, Gyehee Lee. 2011. The HOINCAP scale: measuring
intellectual capital in the hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal 31:13, 2243-2272. [CrossRef]
26. Esther Hormiga, Rosa M. Batista-Canino, Agustn Snchez-Medina. 2011. The Impact of Relational
Capital on the Success of New Business Start-Ups. Journal of Small Business Management 49:4, 617-638.
[CrossRef]
27. Carla Curado, Lopes Henriques, Nick Bontis. 2011. Intellectual capital disclosure payback. Management
Decision 49:7, 1080-1098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Marco Giuliani, Stefano Marasca. 2011. Construction and valuation of intellectual capital: a case study.
29. Jose StPierre, Jose Audet. 2011. Intangible assets and performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital 12:2,
202-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Esther Hormiga, Rosa M. Batista-Canino, Agustn Snchez-Medina. 2011. The role of intellectual
capital in the success of new ventures. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7:1, 71-92.
[CrossRef]
31. Irene M. Herremans, Robert G. Isaac, Theresa J. B. Kline, Jamal A. Nazari. 2011. Intellectual Capital
and Uncertainty of Knowledge: Control by Design of the Management System. Journal of Business Ethics
98:4, 627-640. [CrossRef]
32. Petros A. Kostagiolas, Stefanos AsonitisManaging Intellectual Capital in Libraries and Information
Services 31-50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
33. Mikael Holmgren Caicedo, Maria Mrtensson. 2010. The makings of a statement: accounting for
employee health. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 14:4, 286-306. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
34. Krystin Zigan, Dia Zeglat. 2010. Intangible resources in performance measurement systems of the hotel
industry. Facilities 28:13/14, 597-610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Subhash Abhayawansa, James Guthrie. 2010. Intellectual capital and the capital market: a review and
synthesis. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 14:3, 196-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Jan-Philipp Kramer, Javier Revilla Diez, Elisabetta Marinelli, Simona Iammarino. 2010. Intangible
assets and MNEs locational strategies for innovationor: why the regional matters. Jahrbuch fr
Regionalwissenschaft 30:2, 129-157. [CrossRef]
37. Jose Mara Dez, Magda Lizet Ochoa, M. Begoa Prieto, Alicia Santidrin. 2010. Intellectual capital and
value creation in Spanish firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11:3, 348-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Gregory Laing, Jillian Dunn, Susan HughesLucas. 2010. Applying the VAIC model to Australian
hotels. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11:3, 269-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. PierreMajorique Lger. 2010. Interorganizational IT investments and the value upstream relational
capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11:3, 406-428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Robert G. Isaac, Irene M. Herremans, Theresa J. Kline. 2010. Intellectual Capital Management Enablers:
A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 93:3, 373-391. [CrossRef]
41. Eric Kong, William Mesa. 2010. The composition of intellectual capital in nonprofit orchestras. Journal
42. Indra AbeysekeraChapter 2 Literature review 17-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
43. References 91-100. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
44. Luiz Antonio Joia, Rodrigo Malheiros. 2009. Strategic alliances and the intellectual capital of firms. Journal
45. R. G. WALKER. 2009. Discussion of Lev, Radhakrishnan and Zhang. Abacus 45:3, 299-311. [CrossRef]
46. Bram Boekestein. 2009. Acquisitions reveal the hidden intellectual capital of pharmaceutical companies.
47. Petros A. Kostagiolas, Stefanos Asonitis. 2009. Intangible assets for academic libraries. Library
Management 30:6/7, 419-429. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Mercedes GarciaParra, Pep Simo, Jose M. Sallan, Juan Mundet. 2009. Intangible liabilities: beyond
models of intellectual assets. Management Decision 47:5, 819-830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Klaus Moeller. 2009. Intangible and financial performance: causes and effects. Journal of Intellectual Capital
10:2, 224-245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Kevin J. O'Sullivan, Daniel Brnnstrm, Marco Giuliani. 2009. Accounting for intellectual capital: a
comparative analysis. VINE 39:1, 68-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Nick Bontis, Christopher Bart, Robert G. Isaac, Irene M. Herremans, Theresa J.B. Kline. 2009.
Intellectual capital management: pathways to wealth creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:1, 81-92.
52. Nick Bontis, Christopher Bart, Peter Cleary. 2009. Exploring the relationship between management
accounting and structural capital in a knowledgeintensive sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:1,
37-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Blaise M. Sonnier. 2008. Intellectual capital disclosure: hightech versus traditional sector companies.
54. Kwee Keong Choong. 2008. Intellectual capital: definitions, categorization and reporting models. Journal
55. ARASH AZADEGAN, KEVIN J. DOOLEY, PHILLIP L. CARTER, JOSEPH R. CARTER. 2008.
SUPPLIER INNOVATIVENESS AND THE ROLE OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
IN ENHANCING MANUFACTURER CAPABILITIES. Journal of Supply Chain Management 44:4,
14-35. [CrossRef]
56. Annika Schneider, Grant Samkin. 2008. Intellectual capital reporting by the New Zealand local
government sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital 9:3, 456-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Susanne Durst. 2008. The relevance of intangible assets in German SMEs. Journal of Intellectual Capital
58. Christian Ax, Jan Marton. 2008. Human capital disclosures and management practices. Journal of
Intellectual Capital 9:3, 433-455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Luiz Antonio Joia. 2008. The impact of government-to-government endeavors on the intellectual capital
of public organizations. Government Information Quarterly 25:2, 256-277. [CrossRef]
60. Teresita Arenas, Leonardo Lavanderos. 2008. Intellectual capital: object or process?. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 9:1, 77-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Krystin Zigan, Fraser Macfarlane, Terry Desombre. 2007. Intangible resources as performance drivers
in European hospitals. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 57:1, 57-71.
62. Nick Bontis, Christopher K. Bart, Jamal A. Nazari, Irene M. Herremans. 2007. Extended VAIC model:
measuring intellectual capital components. Journal of Intellectual Capital 8:4, 595-609. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
63. Nando Malmelin. 2007. Communication capital. Corporate Communications: An International Journal
64. Andreas Bausch, Mario Krist. 2007. The effect of context-related moderators on the internationalizationperformance relationship: Evidence from meta-analysis. Management International Review 47:3, 319-347.
[CrossRef]
65. ELIZABETH WEBSTER, PAUL H. JENSEN. 2006. Investment in Intangible Capital: An Enterprise
Perspective*. Economic Record 82:256, 82-96. [CrossRef]
66. Yuan-Chieh Chang, Pei-Ju Yu, Hui-Ru ChiPrioritizing Corporate R&D Capabilities 1796-1819.
[CrossRef]
67. Yuan-Chieh Chang, Pei-Ju Yu, Hui-Ru ChiPrioritizing Corporate R&D Capabilities 209-233. [CrossRef]
68. Silvia Massa, Stefania TestaDo Top-Down Cluster Policies Succeed in Fostering Social Capital and
Innovation? 297-317. [CrossRef]
69. Steve Pike, Gran RoosMeasuring and Valuing Knowledge-Based Intangible Assets 268-293. [CrossRef]
70. Eduardo Bueno Campos, Mnica Longo Somoza, M. Paz SalmadorA Study on the Relations Between
Organizational Identity and Intellectual Capital 76-104. [CrossRef]
71. Constantin BratianuA New Perspective of the Intellectual Capital Dynamics in Organizations 1-21.
[CrossRef]
72. Yuan-Chieh Chang, Carlos KanMeasuring Science & Technology in Panama 55-75. [CrossRef]
73. Hee Song Ng, Daisy Mui Hung KeeKey Intangible Performance Indicators (KIPs) for Organisational
Success 211-225. [CrossRef]

Kaufmann 2004

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kaufmann 2004

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Intellectual Capital

Intangibles: A synthesis of current research

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

WHU Otto Beisheim Graduate School of Management, The Herbert Quandt

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Keywords Intellectual capital, Literature, Intangible assets

Journal of Intellectual Capital

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

systems still primarily provide information on financials and only incomplete

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

a mixture of different kinds of literature and covers a wide variety of features,

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Kategorisierung und bilanzielle Erfassung

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Brennan, N.; Connell, B.

Harrison, S.; Sullivan Sr, P.H.

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P.

The strategy-focused organization

According to those publications the development in Spain is in an early stage.

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.;

Bukh, P.N.; Johanson, U.

Brennan, N.; Connell, B.

IC is not one thing, it is fragile

Petty, R.; Guthrie, J.

Edvinsson, L.; Malone, M.S.

Petty, R.; Guthrie, J.

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.;

Canibano, L.; Sanchez, P.;

Gu, F.; Lev, B.

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Yang, S.; Brynjolfsson, E.

Michalisin, M.l D.;

Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.;

Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P.

Chan, L.K.; Lakonishok, J.;

Intangible assets are non current,

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Categorization of different kinds of

Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.; Jacobsen, K.;

Human capital, structural capital

Internal structure, external structure and

Canibano, L.; Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.;

Harrison, S.; Sullivan Sr, P.H.

Mouritsen, J.; Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.;

Petty, R.; Guthrie, J.

Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.; Olea, M.

Gu, F.; Lev, B.

Michalisin, M.l D.; Kline, D.M.;

Heisig, P.; Vorbeck, J.; Niebuhr, J.

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)

Johanson, U.; Martensson, M.; Skoog, M.I

Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, H.T.; Mouritsen, J.

Chan, L.K.; Lakonishok, J.; Sougiannis, T.

Petty, R.; Guthrie, J.

Categorization of different kinds of

Rastogi (2003) concludes that a categorization of IC is hardly possible. However, he

Downloaded by INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY At 05:59 09 September 2014 (PT)