What is IC?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mary Adams on March 1, 2010 at 9:01pm

Andrea-

This is very interesting!

Is this in practice? Is your organization actually evaluating the Level of reporting for each company? Where and how is this happening? How is it going?

Thanks, Mary

Andrea Gasperini said:

The framework that Association of Italian Financial Analyst (AIAF) has come up with to analyse the quality of reporting procedures for intangible assets.

The framework adopted is three-dimensional:
 It splits information into actual data and forecast data
 It analyses information on the basis of five dimensions typical of Intellectual Capital
 It classifies companies based on how complete the information that they divulge is.
The model has been created with a view to analysing the behaviour of companies on the reporting front, and therefore, since it is applied to companies belonging to different sectors, it has been devised with a view to making it as flexible as possible whenever it is used.
For this reason, although we agree with the more widespread set-up devised for Intellectual Capital, which is based on a three-way split (human resources, relationships and structure), it was felt that using the five dimensions of reporting referred to above might allow the empirical analysis of the quality of company information to be carried out in a more complete and flexible manner.
Another feature peculiar to the AIAF model is the presence of strategy as one of the pillars of information. Strategy is a fundamental element that allows us to interpret and assess more effectively all information that may be disclosed by companies in respect of intangible assets assuming a more pervasive nature if compared with all other dimensions of the reporting process.

The usual content of the five dimensions referred to, with reference to the minimum level of disclosure that will be identified below with the first level, is as follows:

Strategy
Most of the information is of the qualitative kind. The content of this section tackles, in descriptive terms, the following topics:
 products and life cycle
 clients
 markets
 main competitors
 market positioning and market share
 leaning towards internal/external growth policies and alliances.
In terms of prospects, the main lines of development foreseen for the particular market in which the company operates are outlined.
Clients and market
The company provides a description of the sales structure adopted (direct, representatives, chains, sales outlets ….), indicating the relative importance assumed by the various channels. The information disclosed focuses on the element regarded crucial for the sector to which the company belongs: clients, sales outlets, promoters, audience, visitors, users …. The company’s description of its market position may be exemplified by a number of figures, such as number of clients, retention rate, average client acquisition costs and number of sales outlets ….
Human resources
This section provides a description of structure, in terms of staff categories and average cost per employee. The running of human resources also needs to be described, with information regarding staff turnover and a breakdown (functional/divisional) by activities carried out both being provided.
Those internal structures regarded to be strategic are identified and disclosed, with further specific notes of a descriptive nature also being provided in respect of such structures (make-up of research units, average age, level of education for search units, length of time served with company, length of working life).
This section is also used to highlight the connection and consistency existing between internal bonus and incentive schemes, intangible value drivers and performance ratios.
Processes and innovation
The description of this area may take on a role with different degrees of relevance, depending on the actual businesses of interest.
Specifically, the following must be indicated:
 the importance assumed by innovation with regard to the company’s business, providing for example the composition of sales for products with a similar age and for those recently introduced
 the propensity of the company towards innovation, which might be backed up with statistics for projects embarked upon and investments made
 a description of the technologies used, along with any competing technologies
 those processes deemed important, accompanied where appropriate by specific indicators
Organisation
The dimension “Organisation” lends itself predominantly to qualitative information regarding locations, sites and information systems. This section is enriched with the presence of group, division and operation organisation charts. This section may include information (qualitative or otherwise) regarding the company’s relationships with its suppliers, the management policies assumed in this regard, the stability of relationships, etc…

In the presence of an extremely dynamic macroeconomic scenario in which companies are summoned to compete, a sixth dimension for the reporting of intangible resources is acquiring ever-increasing relevance. This is not part of the dimension “strategy” or the dimension “organisation”, and instead bears special features typical of an institutional asset. This dimension concerns the issue of “corporate governance”, intended in its broader description as a management and control system on a par with one of the more powerful value drivers available to the company itself.
This dimension includes, first and foremost, all of the more traditional elements of corporate governance, such as:
 a set of rules, whose purpose is to control the activities of management and steers its efforts in the direction of creating value, for both shareholders and stakeholders,
 interaction between executive organs,
 an adequate internal audit system,
 communication between controlling shareholders and management.
Also part of this dimension is a range of more detailed aspects, such as:
 a system for the delegation of powers and authorities, providing balance, in respect of responsibilities and roles, between management and the Board of Directors,
 remuneration processes,
 the quality of internal and external reporting regarding business performance and the company’s relationship with the financial community,
 attention to the interests of the company’s stakeholders (e.g. production of environmental and social reports, etc.),
 the focus on intangible resources included in other dimensions, such as the adequacy of the company’s human resources and the business organisation to attain the degree of innovation imposed by the sector in which the company operates, such that it can overcome business risks and make the most of business opportunities, therefore optimising its performance as well.

The information belonging to the five categories referred to above may contain actual or forecast data, depending on the nature of the information concerned. It is a known fact that the forecasting dimension assumes considerable importance in the valuation of intangible assets. Indeed, intangible assets are “intangible”, their size and amount being based on their predicted ability to guarantee stable economic benefits in the future.
In view of the pronounced leaning towards the future shown by the information needed to value intangible assets, the actual/forecast character of information has been given an important role in the analysis carried out.
The completeness of information with regard to the five dimensions described, the wealth of detail associated with the level of reporting provided (in respect of future-oriented factors as well), characterises the level of reporting for a company’s intangible elements. For the purposes of the analysis three levels of reporting, under which companies may be classified, have been defined.
Actually, we should point out that a “zero level” situation may also exist, where that is to say reporting activities do not cover, even to the minimal level, the five dimensions described and do not therefore enable an outside reader to understand what the central elements are in order for the intangible portion of the company being analysed to be valued and appreciated. In this case, the analyst – having a partial view of the phenomenon – is not in a position to form his own independent opinion.
The levels of reporting identified, and in keeping with which companies may be classified, are as follows:

Level 1- “minimal” information
A Level 1 company must ensure at least minimum coverage of the five dimensions identified: this means providing at least the information referred to above in summary form, in respect of each of the five dimensions described. The information in this case is predominantly of a qualitative nature, and relates to actual data.
This type of information may be included in a company’s financial statements in different parts of its report on operations and explanatory notes or – better still – in a specially created section within the report on operations.
Level 2 – “reasoned” information.
Level 2 requires the company to be favourable towards the disclosure of intangible assets: in this case the company has set up an ad hoc project for the analysis and disclosure of Intellectual Capital.
The document used for reporting purposes is again the company’s sole financial statements, in which a chapter will be created, as part of the report on operations, to provide information regarding intangible assets.
This section also involves a summary schedule being produced, as a kind of “control panel”. This “panel”, updated on a periodical basis, enables the company’s performance to be compared over time and encourages dynamic analysis. The information provided is similar to Level 1 information; its forecasting component must be accentuated. Specifically, for each of the five dimensions referred to, information (including qualitative information) must be provided in respect of the projected evolution of the company’s size and strategy, along with the usual related objectives that may be defined for the key figures used to measure company performance, for each figure generating value.


Level 3 – extended information: statement of intangible assets
Level 3 is used for those companies that publish a statement for intangible assets. This document is separate from a company’s sole financial statements. It may be structured by following the five sections of reference already described, with the addition of a section that sets out economic/financial targets. This section, by reporting the results obtained in relation to forecasts, also provides a picture of the company’s background in terms of strategies established and subsequently implemented.

Each section covers issues that are important for the business area being considered, and defines the benchmarks to be referred to in order to measure its performance.
Each paragraph contains a level of extended information with respect to the following:
 qualitative descriptions
 quantitative data

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrea Gasperini on March 4, 2010 at 4:33pm

Hi Mary, everything well?
Yes, in Aiaf we have done an analysis of the corporate listed at the stock exchange in Milan on the level of communication of the intangible assets but some years ago and perhaps it would be interesting to repeat now this investigation even if I have the impression that the results would not be very different, or rather the societies are positioned primarily at the first level while is increased the information on ESG indicators ... but, for how much is active a convergence, I don't believe are the same thing of the theme from you proposed of the IC !

I have sent to your address at the TREK Consulting a copie of my book "The Value of the Intellectual Capital" in which I treat also this theme and I hope really to receive yours appreciate observations and possible ideas for a collaboration.

Ciao. Andrea

Mary Adams said:

Andrea-

This is very interesting!

Is this in practice? Is your organization actually evaluating the Level of reporting for each company? Where and how is this happening? How is it going?

Thanks, Mary

Andrea Gasperini said:

The framework that Association of Italian Financial Analyst (AIAF) has come up with to analyse the quality of reporting procedures for intangible assets.

The framework adopted is three-dimensional:
 It splits information into actual data and forecast data
 It analyses information on the basis of five dimensions typical of Intellectual Capital
 It classifies companies based on how complete the information that they divulge is.
The model has been created with a view to analysing the behaviour of companies on the reporting front, and therefore, since it is applied to companies belonging to different sectors, it has been devised with a view to making it as flexible as possible whenever it is used.
For this reason, although we agree with the more widespread set-up devised for Intellectual Capital, which is based on a three-way split (human resources, relationships and structure), it was felt that using the five dimensions of reporting referred to above might allow the empirical analysis of the quality of company information to be carried out in a more complete and flexible manner.
Another feature peculiar to the AIAF model is the presence of strategy as one of the pillars of information. Strategy is a fundamental element that allows us to interpret and assess more effectively all information that may be disclosed by companies in respect of intangible assets assuming a more pervasive nature if compared with all other dimensions of the reporting process.

The usual content of the five dimensions referred to, with reference to the minimum level of disclosure that will be identified below with the first level, is as follows:

Strategy
Most of the information is of the qualitative kind. The content of this section tackles, in descriptive terms, the following topics:
 products and life cycle
 clients
 markets
 main competitors
 market positioning and market share
 leaning towards internal/external growth policies and alliances.
In terms of prospects, the main lines of development foreseen for the particular market in which the company operates are outlined.
Clients and market
The company provides a description of the sales structure adopted (direct, representatives, chains, sales outlets ….), indicating the relative importance assumed by the various channels. The information disclosed focuses on the element regarded crucial for the sector to which the company belongs: clients, sales outlets, promoters, audience, visitors, users …. The company’s description of its market position may be exemplified by a number of figures, such as number of clients, retention rate, average client acquisition costs and number of sales outlets ….
Human resources
This section provides a description of structure, in terms of staff categories and average cost per employee. The running of human resources also needs to be described, with information regarding staff turnover and a breakdown (functional/divisional) by activities carried out both being provided.
Those internal structures regarded to be strategic are identified and disclosed, with further specific notes of a descriptive nature also being provided in respect of such structures (make-up of research units, average age, level of education for search units, length of time served with company, length of working life).
This section is also used to highlight the connection and consistency existing between internal bonus and incentive schemes, intangible value drivers and performance ratios.
Processes and innovation
The description of this area may take on a role with different degrees of relevance, depending on the actual businesses of interest.
Specifically, the following must be indicated:
 the importance assumed by innovation with regard to the company’s business, providing for example the composition of sales for products with a similar age and for those recently introduced
 the propensity of the company towards innovation, which might be backed up with statistics for projects embarked upon and investments made
 a description of the technologies used, along with any competing technologies
 those processes deemed important, accompanied where appropriate by specific indicators
Organisation
The dimension “Organisation” lends itself predominantly to qualitative information regarding locations, sites and information systems. This section is enriched with the presence of group, division and operation organisation charts. This section may include information (qualitative or otherwise) regarding the company’s relationships with its suppliers, the management policies assumed in this regard, the stability of relationships, etc…

In the presence of an extremely dynamic macroeconomic scenario in which companies are summoned to compete, a sixth dimension for the reporting of intangible resources is acquiring ever-increasing relevance. This is not part of the dimension “strategy” or the dimension “organisation”, and instead bears special features typical of an institutional asset. This dimension concerns the issue of “corporate governance”, intended in its broader description as a management and control system on a par with one of the more powerful value drivers available to the company itself.
This dimension includes, first and foremost, all of the more traditional elements of corporate governance, such as:
 a set of rules, whose purpose is to control the activities of management and steers its efforts in the direction of creating value, for both shareholders and stakeholders,
 interaction between executive organs,
 an adequate internal audit system,
 communication between controlling shareholders and management.
Also part of this dimension is a range of more detailed aspects, such as:
 a system for the delegation of powers and authorities, providing balance, in respect of responsibilities and roles, between management and the Board of Directors,
 remuneration processes,
 the quality of internal and external reporting regarding business performance and the company’s relationship with the financial community,
 attention to the interests of the company’s stakeholders (e.g. production of environmental and social reports, etc.),
 the focus on intangible resources included in other dimensions, such as the adequacy of the company’s human resources and the business organisation to attain the degree of innovation imposed by the sector in which the company operates, such that it can overcome business risks and make the most of business opportunities, therefore optimising its performance as well.

The information belonging to the five categories referred to above may contain actual or forecast data, depending on the nature of the information concerned. It is a known fact that the forecasting dimension assumes considerable importance in the valuation of intangible assets. Indeed, intangible assets are “intangible”, their size and amount being based on their predicted ability to guarantee stable economic benefits in the future.
In view of the pronounced leaning towards the future shown by the information needed to value intangible assets, the actual/forecast character of information has been given an important role in the analysis carried out.
The completeness of information with regard to the five dimensions described, the wealth of detail associated with the level of reporting provided (in respect of future-oriented factors as well), characterises the level of reporting for a company’s intangible elements. For the purposes of the analysis three levels of reporting, under which companies may be classified, have been defined.
Actually, we should point out that a “zero level” situation may also exist, where that is to say reporting activities do not cover, even to the minimal level, the five dimensions described and do not therefore enable an outside reader to understand what the central elements are in order for the intangible portion of the company being analysed to be valued and appreciated. In this case, the analyst – having a partial view of the phenomenon – is not in a position to form his own independent opinion.
The levels of reporting identified, and in keeping with which companies may be classified, are as follows:

Level 1- “minimal” information
A Level 1 company must ensure at least minimum coverage of the five dimensions identified: this means providing at least the information referred to above in summary form, in respect of each of the five dimensions described. The information in this case is predominantly of a qualitative nature, and relates to actual data.
This type of information may be included in a company’s financial statements in different parts of its report on operations and explanatory notes or – better still – in a specially created section within the report on operations.
Level 2 – “reasoned” information.
Level 2 requires the company to be favourable towards the disclosure of intangible assets: in this case the company has set up an ad hoc project for the analysis and disclosure of Intellectual Capital.
The document used for reporting purposes is again the company’s sole financial statements, in which a chapter will be created, as part of the report on operations, to provide information regarding intangible assets.
This section also involves a summary schedule being produced, as a kind of “control panel”. This “panel”, updated on a periodical basis, enables the company’s performance to be compared over time and encourages dynamic analysis. The information provided is similar to Level 1 information; its forecasting component must be accentuated. Specifically, for each of the five dimensions referred to, information (including qualitative information) must be provided in respect of the projected evolution of the company’s size and strategy, along with the usual related objectives that may be defined for the key figures used to measure company performance, for each figure generating value.


Level 3 – extended information: statement of intangible assets
Level 3 is used for those companies that publish a statement for intangible assets. This document is separate from a company’s sole financial statements. It may be structured by following the five sections of reference already described, with the addition of a section that sets out economic/financial targets. This section, by reporting the results obtained in relation to forecasts, also provides a picture of the company’s background in terms of strategies established and subsequently implemented.

Each section covers issues that are important for the business area being considered, and defines the benchmarks to be referred to in order to measure its performance.
Each paragraph contains a level of extended information with respect to the following:
 qualitative descriptions
 quantitative data

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debra M. Amidon on March 5, 2010 at 2:45pm

After examining numerous attempts to categorize 'new' measurement variables - http://www.inthekzone.com/pdfs/KIZ%20-%20External%20Indicators%20In..., we have developed something called the Triple Knowledge Lens (TKL) - the triangulation of the Knowledge-based ECONOMY (Business, Commerce and Markets), Knowledge-based SOCIETY (Networks, Communities, Culture) and Knowledge-based INFRASTRUCTURE (Organization, Technology and Environment).

IC would, then, fall into 3 categories...at least this appears to be the prevailing view worldwide: Human, Relational and Structural. This has led us to identify 5 Capital Drivers for each for a total of 15. In line with the Knowledge Inventory suggested by Jay, we have developed an inventory to calibrate your own personal intangible assets: http://www.inthekzone.com/Self-INventory%20Capital%20Drivers.pdf. It is a start…

We’ve done considerable further work on the plethora of new knowledge banks, knowledge markets and innovation platforms made available with advancements in technology and social media. Finally, we have embedded the performance measures into a P7 Blueprint so measures are integrated into innovation strategy - where they become most meaningful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Galen McPherson on March 7, 2010 at 11:28am

we need to get together and talk, Debra; I, too, have been working on a similar approach, with the three types of IC, five knowledge operations [making fifteen categories] then rated against seven attributes, for 105 "shoeboxes" for investigation; http://www.galenmcpherson.com/icrisk.php


Debra M. Amidon said:

After examining numerous attempts to categorize 'new' measurement variables - http://www.inthekzone.com/pdfs/KIZ%20-%20External%20Indicators%20In..., we have developed something called the Triple Knowledge Lens (TKL) - the triangulation of the Knowledge-based ECONOMY (Business, Commerce and Markets), Knowledge-based SOCIETY (Networks, Communities, Culture) and Knowledge-based INFRASTRUCTURE (Organization, Technology and Environment).

IC would, then, fall into 3 categories...at least this appears to be the prevailing view worldwide: Human, Relational and Structural. This has led us to identify 5 Capital Drivers for each for a total of 15. In line with the Knowledge Inventory suggested by Jay, we have developed an inventory to calibrate your own personal intangible assets: http://www.inthekzone.com/Self-INventory%20Capital%20Drivers.pdf. It is a start…

We’ve done considerable further work on the plethora of new knowledge banks, knowledge markets and innovation platforms made available with advancements in technology and social media. Finally, we have embedded the performance measures into a P7 Blueprint so measures are integrated into innovation strategy - where they become most meaningful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debra M. Amidon on March 7, 2010 at 4:14pm

Galen: I totally agree...

We've selected the 3 major categories of IC (Human, Relational and Structural) as it has become somewhat of a standard. This is goodness. Then, we canvassed all the other attempts to identify new variables of intangible value. This is what - using some forced field analysis - gave us the 15 value capital drivers. Then, we determined (again with forced field) the ten variables influencing each, resulting in 150 items from which to chose. So, we are DEFINITELY on the same track.

Then, we returned to Jay Forrester’s systems dynamics and started to play with how all might be put into causal-loop maps and prediction modeling. The closest I’ve seen to this approach is what Manfred Bornemann has done with his InCaS - http://www.inthekzone.com/pdfs/Intellectual_Capital_Statement.pdf.

We convened the performance experts of the ENTOVATION Network [known as the E100] in New York in December and you can find an E100 Alerts scoping the meeting and the players: http://www.entovation.com/mailing/E100%20Alert%20-%20En%20Route%20t....

Our intent was to examine the topic form the 3 economic levels: micro- (enterprise), meso- (national) and macro- (societal).

(At least) 3 conclusions:

1. No one (yet) has the variables; and most focus only on what can (not should) be counted.
2. Few are embedded in any kind of innovation strategy or process where they might derive real value.
3. Most focus on competitive analysis when collaborative advantage is the new name of the game.

So in spite of considerable progress, there is a great deal of work to be done…

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debra M. Amidon on March 7, 2010 at 4:17pm

Debra M. Amidon said:

Galen: I totally agree...

We've selected the 3 major categories of IC (Human, Relational and Structural) as it has become somewhat of a standard. This is goodness. Then, we canvassed all the other attempts to identify new variables of intangible value. This is what - using some forced field analysis - gave us the 15 value capital drivers. Then, we determined (again with forced field) the ten variables influencing each, resulting in 150 items from which to chose. So, we are DEFINITELY on the same track.

Then, we returned to Jay Forrester’s systems dynamics and started to play with how all might be put into causal-loop maps and prediction modeling. The closest I’ve seen to this approach is what Manfred Bornemann has done with his InCaS - http://www.inthekzone.com/pdfs/Intellectual_Capital_Statement.pdf.

We convened the performance experts of the ENTOVATION Network [known as the E100] in New York in December and you can find an E100 Alerts scoping the meeting and the players: http://www.entovation.com/mailing/E100%20Alert%20-%20En%20Route%20t....

Our intent was to examine the topic form the 3 economic levels: micro- (enterprise), meso- (national) and macro- (societal).

(At least) 3 conclusions:

1. No one (yet) has the variables; and most focus only on what can (not should) be counted.
2. Few are embedded in any kind of innovation strategy or process where they might derive real value.
3. Most focus on competitive analysis when collaborative advantage is the new name of the game.

So in spite of considerable progress, there is a great deal of work to be done…

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary Adams on March 12, 2010 at 5:45pm

Gerhard - You're right, we are getting a lot of different ideas here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!).

I guess that my question was trying to get at the basic definition, let's call it a system of classification. But, of course, classifications and approaches can be influenced by the role or goal of those creating the system (such as measurement and reporting). Nevertheless, I think each contribution is a classification set.

But this discussion does beg a whole series of follow-up questions. I would like to turn your question into a series of separate questions about measurement, management and reporting in the coming weeks. Would you mind me doing that?

Also, when you discuss HOW rather than WHAT are you asking how IC components create value? Maybe that's a separate question?

In the mean time, I would like to hear your comments on going deeper in the classifications, beyond HC, SC and RC. In our work, we find that it is most helpful to give a company the basic categories and then ask them to identify the specific resources they have in that category related to how they get paid and/or create value for customers (more on this in the discussion on financials) Is this what you are getting at? What about the Danish system are you citing? Maybe we can get Thomas Mathiasen to comment too. I look forward to your feedback, Mary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Mathiasen on March 15, 2010 at 5:17am

Mary - I have in vain tried to find the discussion where a Danish System should be mentioned. Alas, without succes. And I have never heard that we should have a Danish IC system. So, not much help from me here.
A good discussion as this is nice to follow. I would love, though, to have that discussion spread out to include accountants and business managers. Not as such to get an agreement, but partaking in a discussion will get the parties mores involved in the concept.

Thomas

Mary Adams said:

Gerhard - You're right, we are getting a lot of different ideas here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!).

I guess that my question was trying to get at the basic definition, let's call it a system of classification. But, of course, classifications and approaches can be influenced by the role or goal of those creating the system (such as measurement and reporting). Nevertheless, I think each contribution is a classification set.

But this discussion does beg a whole series of follow-up questions. I would like to turn your question into a series of separate questions about measurement, management and reporting in the coming weeks. Would you mind me doing that?

Also, when you discuss HOW rather than WHAT are you asking how IC components create value? Maybe that's a separate question?

In the mean time, I would like to hear your comments on going deeper in the classifications, beyond HC, SC and RC. In our work, we find that it is most helpful to give a company the basic categories and then ask them to identify the specific resources they have in that category related to how they get paid and/or create value for customers (more on this in the discussion on financials) Is this what you are getting at? What about the Danish system are you citing? Maybe we can get Thomas Mathiasen to comment too. I look forward to your feedback, Mary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Mathiasen on March 15, 2010 at 10:41am

Gerhard - I found and have ordered the reference in order to look into the case and what has happened to this afterwards.
/ Thomas

Dr Gerhard Kristandl said:

Thomas, mea culpa ... I have mentioned the approach to Intellectual Capital Statements from Denmark in a posting I deleted eventually. Apologies!

The suggestion I mentioned can be found right here: Intellectual Capital Statements in Practice. This was from a research project including two universities, firms listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange, as well as the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary Adams on March 15, 2010 at 8:10pm

Thomas-I agree that it would be great to broaden the discussion. I hope that we all keep inviting new members to the ICKC to get a very broad discussion!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sedat Ozcelik on March 16, 2010 at 7:51pm

Need Accounting of IC - you need...
1.

2.

Sample Attach...

Attachments:

• wm-hd.jpg, 82 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sedat Ozcelik on March 16, 2010 at 9:22pm

Hi,

in Austria is the Intellectual Capital 1.0 (Based Indicators prescribed) is well known to them.
The Wissensbilanz 2.0 is the evolution of the basic models.
The German translation of the "Wissensbilanz" in English "IC Statement" or an "IC report should be" is misleading!
A balance sheet is the T-ahead Account (action) knowledge whose origin and use belongs to a knowledge balance.

On the new site design on www.wissensbilanz.de they find current articles and more.

You can find more documentation: http://www.research-science.com

Gladly we can talk about it.
Take full advantage of our group in XING http:// www.xing.com/net/wissensbilanz

Here's a new article in the Strategy journal (German)
Impulse fuer den Mittelstand 1-2010.pdf

Best regards
Sedat
(Sie erreichen mich Tagsüber unter: 01577-1577088)



Dr Gerhard Kristandl said:

Sedat - great idea to bring the Wissensbilanz 2.0 (Knowledge Balance Sheet) in. I'd like to add - if I may - a bit more information; the Knowledge Balance Sheet is:

...

(sources: http://www.wissensbilanz.eu/; http://www.wissensbilanz.ch/downloads/en.pdf)

I guess the drawback - similar to the Knowledge Balance Sheet as provided by the Austrian Research Centers Seibersdorf - is its lack of standardization; I was wondering if you could tell us more about this issue, Sedat. How far is your progress in that area? What industries/corporations are already using them (non-academic sector)? I know that they are highly successfull in Austrian universities.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page