Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Liebowitz, C. Suen (2000)
Developing knowledge management metrics for measuring intellectual capitalJournal of Intellectual Capital, 1
A. Webber
New math for a new economy
I. Caddy (2000)
Intellectual capital: recognizing both assets and liabilitiesJournal of Intellectual Capital, 1
Bill Capodagli, L. Jackson (2001)
The Disney Way: Harnessing the Management Secrets of Disney in Your Company
T.H. Davenport, L. Prusak
Information Ecology
G. Hamel (2000)
Leading the Revolution
Gary Hamel, C. Prahalad (1994)
Competing for the Future
J. Roos, G. Roos, L. Edvinsson, N.C. Dragonetti
Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Landscape
R. Tissen, D. Andriessen, F. Lekanne Deprez
The Knowledge Dividend
S. Boersma (1999)
Boekbespreking van Tissen, R., Andriessen, D. en Lekanne Deprez, F., Value-based knowledge management, creating the 21st century company: knowledge intensive, people rich, 2
R. Tissen, D. Andriessen, F. Lekanne Deprez
Value‐based Knowledge Management; Creating the 21st Century Company: Knowledge Intensive, People Rich
S. David, C. Meyer
Blur
Kevin Kelly (1998)
New Rules for the New Economy
Richard Petty, J. Guthrie (2000)
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL LITERATURE REVIEW: MEASUREMENT, REPORTING AND MANAGEMENTJournal of Intellectual Capital, 1
D. Andriessen, R. Tissen
Weightless Wealth; Find Your Real Value in a Future of Intangible Assets
D. Andriessen, I. Gisbergen, J. Blom (1999)
A CORE COMPETENCY APPROACH TO VALUING INTANGIBLE ASSETS
L. Edvinsson, B. Kitts, T. Beding (2000)
The next generation of IC measurement – the digital IC‐landscapeJournal of Intellectual Capital, 1
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 of Intellectual Capital – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 1, 2001
Keywords: Intellectual property; Intangible assets; Accounting; Methodology; Core competences
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.