Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Weightless wealth: four modifications to standard IC theory

Weightless wealth: four modifications to standard IC theory Standard Intellectual Capital theory contains some key assumptions or practices that limit our view on the weightless wealth of companies. Discusses four of those practices: first, the tendency to limit the discussion about the weightless wealth of companies to intellectual means of production. Second, the use of classification schemas that break down the total capital of a company into its contributing parts. Third, the tendency to treat intangibles the same way we treat tangible assets, by trying to force them into the double‐entry bookkeeping system. Finally, the lack of suitable yardsticks that enable the user to judge whether measurements should be seen as too high or too low. For each of these practices an alternative is provided, based on a practical and fully tested methodology. Shows that it is still possible to enrich existing Intellectual Capital theory and make it more applicable in practice. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Intellectual Capital Emerald Publishing

Weightless wealth: four modifications to standard IC theory

Journal of Intellectual Capital , Volume 2 (3): 11 – Sep 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/weightless-wealth-four-modifications-to-standard-ic-theory-KRizZP3cAc

References (18)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 MCB UP Ltd. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1469-1930
DOI
10.1108/14691930110399941
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Standard Intellectual Capital theory contains some key assumptions or practices that limit our view on the weightless wealth of companies. Discusses four of those practices: first, the tendency to limit the discussion about the weightless wealth of companies to intellectual means of production. Second, the use of classification schemas that break down the total capital of a company into its contributing parts. Third, the tendency to treat intangibles the same way we treat tangible assets, by trying to force them into the double‐entry bookkeeping system. Finally, the lack of suitable yardsticks that enable the user to judge whether measurements should be seen as too high or too low. For each of these practices an alternative is provided, based on a practical and fully tested methodology. Shows that it is still possible to enrich existing Intellectual Capital theory and make it more applicable in practice.

Journal

Journal of Intellectual CapitalEmerald Publishing

Published: Sep 1, 2001

Keywords: Intellectual property; Intangible assets; Accounting; Methodology; Core competences

There are no references for this article.