KM6 Assessing Knowledge Assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital

PART I

1. Stewart defines intellectual capital as intellectual material - Knowledge, information, intellectual property and experience - that can be put to use to create wealth.
2. IC could be an addendum accompanying with traditional financial reports.
3. The value an organization place on its IC is wholly dependent upon the goals of the organization and the state of the market.
4. A 500-year-old system of accounting must make way for a system of non-financial knowledge flow and intangible assets that use new proxies.
5. The pursuit of measuring IC assets objetively is a noble but difficult one.
6. The measurement examples thus far have been too firm-specific and no set of indicators could hope to be general enough to encompass the needs of a variety of international and industry settings.
7. Pursuing standards at this point might be more harmful given the nascent stage of research development.

part II

This paper reviews six assessments of IC and interprets their strengths and weaknesses. In the content, the author mentioned that many companies agree IC is important, but a few companies really practice it.

According to this paper, IC have different definitions among scholars. But it still has some similar parts, for example, human capital, finance of firm, renewal and development, customer etc. IC assessment the paper listed are trying to measure value of above items, even it is intangible.

In conclusion, IC assesment is almost firm-based, but pursuing standards might be more harmful given the nascent stage of research development. Academic should keep push this field into advance.

PART III

TOPIC: Knowledge assets assesment

This paper consider knowledge assets as intellectual capital. We could notice that there are many ways to assess IC and each of them have strenghs and weakness. It is also firm-based.

PART IV

After reading this paper, I felt something seems to be lost. First, I still cannot practice IC assesment, it is too abstract. Second, IC assesments are usually customization, but the author didn't talk about how to choose or create an appropriate one for each company. Third, because of the firm-based assesment, how to judge the way you used is right and efficient? After all, right or wrong, good or bad, those concept is relative as well as basing on comparing. But firm-base assesments can't compare with each other.

Now that it cannot compare, and the items which be assessed resemble knowledge map. I think, somewhere, knowledge mapping is enough and can be replaced IC assesment with it.