The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

Intellectual
Intellectual capital: capital
management attitudes in
service industries 181
Lynn L.K. Lim
Murdoch University, Australia, and
Peter Dallimore
The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia
Keywords Intellectual capital, Knowledge management, Measurement, Service industries,
Intangible assets
Abstract Developing intellectual capital and knowledge management measuring systems are two
fast growing research areas. Many companies are striving to be known as knowledge organizations
and have started measuring and analyzing organizational intellectual capital indicators based on
what has been reported in the literature. Very little effort has been made to standardize the
measurement and reporting of these indicators with most organizations using very general
components. This article discusses a research study that sets out to gain an understanding of
management attitudes to the measurement of intellectual capital. The study was conducted with 36
top management participants with at least 20 years of experience in a service-related industry in
Australia. This research investigates the relationship between the perception of the importance of
measuring intellectual capital indicators and the level of understanding of these indicators. The
strategic implications of understanding the measurements are also discussed within the context of
the attitude of top management.

Introduction
Increasingly intellectual capital, synonymously used to refer to intangible
assets and to knowledge capital, is becoming the driver of value in an
organization. It is an important economic resource for many organizations and
directly affects competition in markets (Stewart, 1997; Lynn, 2000; Groves,
2002). Accounting bodies, standard initiators or setters, academics, analysts,
researchers, and government regulators have conducted studies and issued
reports on the need for organizational measurement of such capital (OECD,
1996; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; FASB, 2001). This article discusses a
research study that sets out to gain an understanding of management attitudes
to the measurement of intellectual capital. This analysis is only one aspect of a
larger study into the determinants of intellectual capital.
The study of intellectual capital is described as more of an art than a science
(words of value, www.icvision.com) involving creativity and psychological
factors, and including an integration of behavioral studies (organizational Journal of Intellectual Capital
behaviors and consumer behaviors). Business competition will intensify in the Vol. 5 No. 1, 2004
pp. 181-194
knowledge economy because of its growth potential. Many new concepts q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
promise novel ways of conducting business in the knowledge economy DOI 10.1108/14691930410512996
JIC (McCreesh, 1998; Fitzgerald, 2001). They are becoming instrumental in driving
5,1 organizational objectives, business strategies and corporate reorganization.
There is also an indication of the growing importance corporate executives
place on non-financial measurements and value drivers in communicating how
value is created for shareholders. A “knowledge organization” describes an
organization which acknowledges and values the intellectual capital that gives
182 it a distinct competitive advantage. Knowledge capital impacts on a company’s
profitability (Osterland, 2001) and organizations that recognize this encourage
continual learning and actively manage their intellectual capital (Huseman and
Goodman, 1999).
Guthrie and Petty (2000) suggested that the development of intellectual
capital measurements is not widespread in large companies. As competitive
pressures increase the need continuously to create, develop and value
knowledge, it has become a basic building block for organizational excellence.
Weaknesses in measuring such information eventually lead businesses to
stagnate and wither away in the face of a dynamic environment. The collapse
of One.Tel and HIH has reminded us that annual accounts do not always paint
a reliable picture. Investors are exposed to executives’ mismanagement.
Therefore it is to be hoped that a standard can be set to increase the information
to the public and to ensure that sufficient indicators of intellectual capital,
intangible assets or knowledge capital and the reporting of these indicators are
in place for investors.
The methodology used in this study was to identify the important indicators
which executive management groups perceived as important for organizational
functioning and then to determine their understanding of the method of
measuring such indicators. Subsequently, the strategic implications of
understanding the measurement of the indicators are discussed within the
context of the attitude of top management.

Measuring intellectual capital

A study conducted by Huseman and Goodman (1999) with more than 200 large
companies in the USA found that more than three quarters of the companies
surveyed were moving towards becoming knowledge organizations. Many
companies are striving to be known as knowledge organizations and have
started measuring and analyzing organizational determinants based on what
has been reported in the literature. These organizations are beginning to use
innovative methods to place greater emphasis in valuing non-traditional capital
measurements such as human capital and customer capital. For example,
Bankwest is advancing its balanced scorecard to become a strategy-focused
organization and placing strategy at the heart of the management process.
Bank of Melbourne has also developed and implemented a human resources
(HR) Balanced Scorecard. Other companies such as Zurich Financial Services
Australia, John Danks & Son, Royal Australian Navy, Western Water and
Toyota Australia are collecting and reporting Balanced Scorecard results to Intellectual
ensure strategic vision translates into outcomes. However a comprehensive capital
management framework for collecting and reporting intellectual capital
formation is yet to be developed (Guthrie and Petty, 2000).
Methods for measuring intellectual capital or intangible assets have been
proposed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), Sveiby (1997), Edvinsson and Malone
(1997), Lev (1999), Andriessen and Tiessen (2000), Bontis (2000) and Sullivan 183
(2000). Lev (1999) has developed a methodology, which is based on the
economic concept of the production function – where physical, financial and
knowledge, or intangible assets generate the firm’s economic performance. So
far no one method can claim to have fulfilled all purposes. Very little effort has
been made to standardize the measurement and reporting of these indicators
with most organizations using very general components.
Developing intellectual capital and knowledge management measuring
systems are two fast growing research areas. Measuring and valuing
intellectual capital is significant, as valuation is a crucial issue and will become
more important as some of the existing infrastructure reaches the end of its
useful life. More and more valuation specialists and consultants are working in
the knowledge economy to help companies extract value, measure its increase
and communicate such values to external entities. For example, some
companies are using Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) Balanced Scorecard and
Sveiby’s (1988, 1997) Intangible Asset Monitor. Frost and Cooke (1999)
suggested that managing intangible assets could help to determine
organizational identity, image, performance and reputation. Measuring the
volatility of the value of intellectual capital with a quantifiable figure in a
balance sheet tends to be difficult. Many organizations have barriers to the
integration of such knowledge management systems because of unclear or
unbalanced strategies and the lack of top management commitment.
Financial and non-financial information should be considered in an
organization’s strategic planning. The usual financial statements are
insufficient to provide an accurate assessment of a company’s value. A
fraction of the difficulty the market faces in valuing a firm is the absence of any
formal information regarding the value of intellectual capital (Guthrie and Petty,
2000). The volatility of the share-market following the terrorist attacks on the
USA’s financial heart has bewildered many investors. Most investors stick with
quality stocks or buy quality companies with strength in management as well as
favorable returns on equity. Directors, executives, managers and general staff
recognize that they have to be accountable for an organization’s performances.
They are becoming more questioning and likely to seek more security from their
organizations by asking for their contributions to the organization to be
measured. Hence, organizations need to reconsider their management strategy
to retain employees especially during the upturn in the economy.
The Federal Government has warned that Australia is losing the brain race
and is slipping behind in the global market for exporting knowledge-intensive
JIC services and electronically mediated work (Sinclair, 2001). It is also
5,1 encouraging organizations to come up with integrated strategies to help
position themselves in the knowledge-intensive worldwide markets rather than
competing purely on cost.
According to the Australian Accounting Standards Board, Australia
currently does not have an accounting standard on intangibles except the
184 current non-mandatory framework for best practice in accounting for
intangibles in Australia (www.aasb.com.au). Nevertheless, the Australian
Accounting Standards Board had intangible assets on its agenda last year and
has published an international survey on its Web site. This survey summarizes
current Australian and overseas pronouncements on intangible assets as well
as the future development dealing with various aspects of accounting for
intangible assets.
Shearer (1999) pointed out that listed companies intangible assets comprise
an estimated 73 percent of the market value and managing such assets is a core
competency in every department. Intangible assets are difficult to measure and
often are captured poorly with companies focusing on the readily quantifiable
indicators of sales, costs, assets, liabilities and profits. Australian companies
find intangibles difficult to quantify (Guthrie and Petty, 2000). Heffes (2001) in
his analysis on mergers and acquisitions indicated that if the intangible assets
are not valued, it is counter to the interests of investors and analysts.

Conceptual framework
Do people within top management of an organization have similar opinions on
the indicators that might be used to determine an organization’s intellectual
capital? Are these indicators really necessary and important in the creation of
value for the organization?
There are many definitions of intellectual capital, intangible assets and
knowledge capital. Osterland (2001) defines knowledge capital as intellectual
and human capital, and customer and supplier capital. Sullivan (2000) defines
human capital as including the collective experience, skills, and general
know-how of all of the firm’s people. Intangible assets are items ranging from
patents and skilled employees to less concrete items, such as business alliances
and customer lists (Hrisak, 2001). Other measures include customer acquisition
costs, cost per unit, revenue per transaction, and revenue per employee. Any
article addressing issues on intellectual capital will include different
classifications and definitions. For the purpose of this paper, we use
intellectual capital to cover the three classifications: intellectual capital,
intangible assets and knowledge capital.
The framework, which is described in Lim and Dallimore (2002), sets out the
basic concept addressing the intellectual capital associated with management
know-how and marketing know-how. The corporate competencies for a
strategic management approach are the human capital, corporate capital,
business capital and functional capital (Figure 1). The corporate relationships Intellectual
for the strategic marketing approach are customer capital, vendor or supplier capital
capital, strategic alliance or partnership capital and investor capital. The
indicators are categorized into several distinct categories. These categories are
used for general identification and for classification purposes that are relevant
to the service-related industries. The indicators in each category are generally
185
similar in nature and function.
Lim and Dallimore (2002) provide a description of each type of the capital. In
brief, human capital includes the skills and information of the organization’s
entire group. Corporate capital contains a set of determinants that a company
uses in it strategic management and planning process to view the company’s
competitiveness in the industry as a whole. Business capital covers resources
such as the ratio of the loss in business to the market average, the revenue
generated from new business and the utility of online businesses. Functional
capital includes areas such as the ratio of training expenses over administrative
expenses and the processing time efficiency.
Successful relationships can provide significant opportunities for
innovation. Customer capital enhances values to the organization. Supplier
capital will lead to reduction in costs and increase quality of supply for the
organization. Alliance or partnership capital is critical for a business to gain a
competitive position locally and globally. Investor capital such as the number
of repeat investors and the percentage of investors who own more than 10
percent of the shares are also indicators which are considered relevant.
There are many capital indicators, which have been used by researchers. See
for example the articles by Edvinsson and Malone (1997), Roos et al. (1997),
Brooking (1999), ICM Group (1998), Sullivan (1998), Canadian Management
Accounting (1999), Allee (2000), Gross et al. (2000). Based on a list of 500
indicators obtained from intangible information disclosed in Australia public

Figure 1.
Organisational
intellectual capital
framework
JIC listed service companies and those identified by the above-mentioned authors,
5,1 a set of 120 indicators was selected. This was done through consultation with a
group of industry analysts. The indicators are shown in Tables I and II and are
categorized according to the framework in Figure 1. These categories are used
for general identification and classification purposes, which are relevant to the
implementation of strategic business and marketing plans in the service-related
186 industries companies. The indicators in each category are generally similar in
nature and function.

Methodology
This research aims to establish a set of indicators which top management of
organizations in the service industry in Australia perceive as being important
to measure for strategic purposes. Service industries have been chosen because
of their importance in the global economy. In Australia, 73 percent of the
workforce is involved in services (Axiss, 2001). In addition, this research is also
designed to determine the participants’ knowledge of these indicators and to
assess their understanding of how their measurement is conducted. The
strategic implications of understanding the indicators are also discussed within
the context of the attitude of top management.
The research was conducted primarily through quantitative surveys. It was
supported by some qualitative research carried out with selected participants
who were keen to discuss further the implications of this research. This study
was carried out with 36 top management people with at least 20 years of
experience in publicly-listed companies in service-related industries in
Australia. Only listed companies in banking, telecommunication, leisure and
tourism, transport and finance sectors were selected. The participants were
based in their head offices. The participants were not only the executive
directors (chief executive officers, managing directors, presidents, etc.), but also
representatives of the heads of divisions or functions (head of finance, head of
human resources, general manager-marketing, etc.).
The prospective respondents were initially asked to express their interest in
participating in this research. Then interested respondents were asked to
indicate their perceived importance to disclose the measurements and then to
identify their level of understanding on how these measurements are
determined. The quantitative methods were based on a five-point scale. A
follow-up was conducted with those respondents who were interested in
discussing the research further.
Every business division or function needs to be involved in the reporting
and measuring of intellectual capital. If different standards and perceptions are
generated from different functions, there tends to be conflict when they are
embedded into an organization’s operations. The strategy should not be
developed based only on the perceptions at the board level. To be successful,
senior executives need to be involved in both developing and implementing the
Measures x 1 Management know-how capitals x 2 Intellectual
capital
Human capital
H1a 4.58 Staff satisfaction index 4.03
H2a 4.42 Staff turnover quarterly, half-yearly and yearly 4.22
H3a 4.36 Number or percentage of full-time, part-time, 4.50
contract or temporary staffs 187
H4a 4.14 Maximisation and utilisation of the total staff 3.83
capacity
H5a 3.89 The ratio of salary to total cost 4.22
H6a 3.72 Workforce competence profile 3.58
H7a 3.67 Experts and professionals turnover quarterly, 3.81
half-yearly and yearly
H8a 3.56 Value added per employee 3.22
H9a 3.50 The educational level of workforce (average of 3.86
each functional level)
H10 3.50 Value of workforce stability index 3.64
H11 3.47 Number of men and women management staff 3.58
H12 3.25 Staff average years of working experience 3.67
H13 3.22 Motivation index of staff 3.25
H14 2.86 Staff average years of services with the company 3.92
H15 2.61 The average age of management and operational 3.67
staff

Corporate capital
R1a 4.75 The ratio of income to the expenses 4.58
R2a 4.42 Brand recognition index 3.83
R3a 4.14 Average market value monthly, quarterly, 4.22
half-yearly and yearly
R4a 4.00 Total IT costs with respect to total sales 3.94
R5a 4.00 The profit earned per staff 4.17
R6a 3.92 Number of strategies developed and implemented 3.83
R7a 3.81 Internal divisional satisfaction index 3.97
R8a 3.75 Corporate leadership index 3.25
R9 3.53 Total assets per staff 3.92
R10 3.47 The ratio of market-to-book value 3.61
R11 3.39 Number of service awards won 3.89
R12 3.22 Number of internal promotion half-yearly or 3.78
annually
R13 2.97 Corporate sensitivity to defection index 2.58
R14 2.33 Value of the corporate capacity 2.33
R15 2.31 Number of overseas presence 3.30
Table I.
Business capital
Analysis of the level of
B1a 4.64 The rate of growth or loss in business 4.11 importance of
B2a 4.53 Revenue generated from new businesses 4.03 measuring intellectual
(continued) capital (management)
JIC Measures x 1 Management know-how capitals x 2
5,1
B3a 4.08 The number of new business markets or channels 3.67
development
B4a 4.00 The utility of online business 4.06
B5a 3.94 The lost of business ratio to market average 3.22
188 B6a 3.94 The number of commercial centres, business 4.11
centres or sales hubs
B7a 3.86 The utility of telephone based business 3.58
(telemarketing or telesales)
B8a 3.67 The amount of time used to develop new 3.06
businesses over the total business time
B9 3.64 Number of new services provided (annually) 3.75
B10 3.58 The cost of error over management revenues 3.14
B11 3.47 Quality assurance index of businesses 3.36
B12 3.42 Number of quality performance awards 3.61
B13 3.39 Number of new ideas or innovations 3.50
B14 3.31 The number of new internal process introduced 3.08
B15 2.94 The expenditure share of total administration 2.92

Functional capital
F1a 4.06 Total training and education costs for each 3.92
operating functional groups
F2a 4.00 The percentage of budget allocated to training 3.75
F3a 3.78 The processing time efficiency 3.31
F4a 3.56 The training time over the total staff hours 3.50
F5 3.53 The ratio of administration expenses to total cost 3.53
F6 3.47 The amount of training expenses over the 3.56
administrative expenses
F7 3.33 The amount of IT expenses over the 3.42
administrative expenses
F8 3.31 Number of ideas implemented from suggestion 3.61
box
F9 3.25 The total time and cost in training in general 3.61
F10 3.25 Administrative expenses per employee 3.17
F11 2.89 The average age of functional systems 2.89
F12 2.72 The accessibility of information sharing system 2.64
F13 2.50 Technological capabilities index 2.75
F14 2.47 The number of personal computers or laptops per 3.31
employee
F15 2.36 Value of process control 2.47
Notes:
x 1 : Mean of the level of importance of measuring the capital indicator (1 – No comments, 2 – Not
important, 3 – Beneficial, 4 – Important, 5 – Critical)
x 2 : Mean of the level of understanding of how these indicator are measured (1 – No idea, 2 –
Somewhat, 3 – Average, 4 – Good, 5 – Very good)
a
Table I. Critical and important measurements determined by more than 25 respondents (. 70 per cent)
Measures x 1 Marketing know-how capitals x 2 Intellectual
capital
Customer capital
C1a 4.58 Customer satisfaction index 4.22
C2a 4.44 Market share of customer in the industry 4.33
C3a 4.44 Revenue per customer 4.08
C4a 4.33 Customer turnover 3.72 189
C5a 4.11 Total number of accounts to the total number of 3.94
customers
C6a 4.03 Number of customers (corporate and 3.83
non-corporate customers, new customers, etc.)
C7a 4.00 Turnaround time for customer request 3.56
C8a 3.97 Marketing cost per new customer 3.61
C9a 3.97 The service expense per contact or customer 3.47
C10a 3.86 The rate of repeat customers 3.39
C11a 3.86 The acquisition cost on developing new 3.28
customers
C12a 3.83 Total customer sales to total enquiries 3.28
C13a 3.83 Time to maintain existing customers 3.39
C14 3.64 Total number of transactions 3.97
C15 2.64 Customer time per staff time 2.67

Vendor/supplier capital
V1a 3.53 The percentage of total expenses paid to vendors 3.47
over total revenue
V2 3.50 Electronic accessibility to vendors and its 3.42
resources
V3 3.28 Suppliers defect rate 2.97
V4 3.25 Suppliers satisfaction index 2.94
V5 3.17 The average time of support or service from 2.72
vendor
V6 2.94 The percentage of business referrals from vendors 2.72
V7 2.81 Number of ideas or leads generated from vendors 2.61
V8 2.69 Total number of vendors or suppliers 3.17
V9 2.69 Vendors average years of experiences in related 2.78
industry
V10 2.64 The level of vendors response rate 2.67
V11 2.61 Average years of contact with the vendors 2.69
V12 2.61 The vendors attitude index (support, 2.72
responsiveness, ease, consistency)
V13 2.56 The amount of provision of training on vendors’ 2.50
products
V14 2.53 Total number of vendor replacements yearly 2.69
V15 2.31 Percentage of IT related vendors 2.67
Table II.
Alliance/partnership capital Analysis of the level of
A1a 4.36 The rate of growth of alliances 3.97 importance of
A2a 4.03 Number of partnerships or joint venture 3.72 measuring intellectual
(continued) capital (marketing)
JIC x 1 Marketing know-how capitals x 2
Measures
5,1
A3a 4.03 Revenue generated from alliances over total 3.67
revenue
A4a 4.03 The availability of electronic banking facilities for 3.78
business customers
190 A5a 3.89 Number of affinity partners 3.89
A6a 3.83 Number of acquisitions 3.92
A7a 3.81 Number of mergers 3.89
A8a 3.64 Number of alliance network 3.72
A9a 3.50 Alliances or partnerships satisfaction index 3.53
A10 3.50 Number of operating agents contracted externally 3.64
A11 3.47 Number of sponsorship associations 3.69
A12 3.39 The ratio of alliances expenses over total 3.19
expenses
A13 3.08 Partnership or alliances turnover 3.08
A14 2.58 The alliance asset index 2.86
A15 2.31 Ratio of contracts to the external contracts 2.42

Investor capital
I1a 4.25 The number of shareholders 4.03
I2a 3.72 The percentage of investors who owned more 3.78
than 10 per cent shares
I3a 3.44 Number of investors who are customers 3.36
I4a 3.42 Number of complaints from investor 2.94
I5 3.39 Share of investors [individual, corporate, financial 3.39
funds, trust company]
I6 3.36 Top investor’s relationship turnover 3.00
I7 3.28 Top 20 shareholders satisfaction index 3.11
I8 3.14 The percentage of foreign investor 3.17
I9 3.14 Number of internal investors 3.17
I10 2.83 Additional revenue generated from investors 2.58
I11 2.83 The average length of investors with the company 3.03
I12 2.64 Number of ideas or innovations from investors 2.72
I13 2.50 Number of repeat investors 2.94
I14 2.33 The amount of investment on training to the 2.22
investors
I15 2.31 The service expenses on investors over total 2.33
expenses
Notes:
x 1 : Mean of the level of importance of measuring the capital indicator (1 – No comments, 2 – Not
important, 3 – Beneficial, 4 – Important, 5 – Critical)
x 2 : Mean of the level of understanding of how these indicator are measured (1 – No idea, 2 –
Somewhat, 3 – Average, 4 – Good, 5 – Very good)
a
Table II. Critical and important measurements determined by more than 25 respondents (. 70 per cent)
process. Hence, some companies had discussed their perceptions through board Intellectual
meetings or management meetings prior to submission of the survey. capital

Discussions
The perception of the importance of measuring the intellectual capital
indicators and the level of understanding of these indicators are shown in 191
Tables I and II. The indicators are listed for each type of capital in order of
importance. The respondents have indicated that the majority of the
measurements are important to evaluate – from useful to measure (x1 ¼ 3)
to critically important to measure (x1 ¼ 5). All the respondents have some
knowledge to very good knowledge (x2 between a value of more than 2 to 5) of
understanding the indicators and the way they are being measured.
The results for the human capital (2.61-4.58), business capital (2.94-4.64) and
customer capital (2.64-4.58) show that the indicators are useful and important
to measure. Similarly most of the indicators in the customer capital (2.31-4.75),
functional capital (2.36-4.06), vendor or supplier capital (2.31-3.53), alliance
capital (2.31-4.36) and investor capital (2.31-4.25) are critical to measure except
for one or two indicators in each category which have an average value near to
the “not important”. The indicators marked with a superscript a in Tables I and
II are those for which more than 70 percent of the respondents have specifically
indicated that they are either important or critically important to measure. The
only two, which were identified by more than ten respondents as not important
to measure, were H15 and R15.
The results on the respondents understanding of the process of measuring
these indicators (x2 ) showed that most of the respondents understand the
process of measuring the indicators except for R13, R14, F11 to F13, F15, C15,
V5 to V7, V9 to V15, A14, A15, I11, I14 to I15.
Other indicators not included in the list of 120 indicators were suggested as
important to measure by some respondents. These included digital assets,
percentage of revenue from products launched in last three to five years,
percentage of revenue from new ideas and human capital contribution of staff
by grade (comparison between middle, senior and executive management).
These indicators may be included in future studies.
Some respondents have viewed measuring such indicators as a guide for
reviewing a business plan or a marketing plan. Others have commented that
extra effort is required to be put into measuring these indicators thus creating
additional workloads for the organizations. A remark on valuation of
intellectual capital and knowledge management by one of the managing
directors stated, “These issues give me considerable grief. The accounting
profession or auditors all look ‘down their noses’ at any of these items on the
Balance Sheet and placed continual pressure on me to get rid of any of them as
soon as possible. This pressure is ingrained and intense. Accountants are
opposed to anything that is ‘valued or guessed at’. Until the accounting
JIC profession is won over, I would be opposed to the introduction of IC valuations
5,1 as it’s just another statutory problem to deal with”.

Conclusions and managerial implications

Intellectual capital is of substantial and growing importance in innovation,
192 productivity, growth, enterprise competitiveness, and economic performance.
The unpredictability and volatility of the business environment should require
companies to look into their intangible assets, including their management
know-how and marketing know-how. The purpose of setting standards for
indicators of these assets is to ensure that non-financial information is
presented in a way that enables decision-makers to make informed judgment
based on a comparative standard. The results showed that the management
know-how capitals are relatively similar in its significance based on the top five
indicators. As for the marketing know-how capitals, customer capital stands up
to be more significant than other capitals. These indicators would provide
significant benefits to existing and prospective investors as well as the quality
of the services provided by the companies.
Research has also been conducted with fund managers in the investment
community on their perception towards the importance of disclosing the
indicators of the different forms of capital assets (Lim and Dallimore, 2002).
The fund managers were also asked about their level of understanding of how
these indicators are being measured and how they can be evaluated. Similarly,
the results have shown that the investment community stressed more
emphases on human capital and customer capital. They also questioned
whether organizations would disclose information on indicators to the public.
Some say that this is unlikely unless there is a mandatory requirement set by
regulators. Nevertheless, when the publics see the new reporting of this
intellectual capital information, they may develop a new attitude toward the
company. An on-going study is being conducted with the listed companies to
determine their perceptions of the importance of disclosing these indicators as
well as determining their willingness to disclose them if they were given a
choice not to disclose such information.

References
Allee, V. (2000), “The value evolution: addressing larger implications of an intellectual capital
and intangibles perspective”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Andriessen, D. and Tiessen, R. (2000), Weightless Weight: Find Your Real Value in a Future of
Intangible Assets, Pearson Education, London.
Axiss (2001), Axiss Australia: A Global Financial Services Centre in the Asian Time Zone, Axiss
Australia, Sydney, October, available at: www.axiss.com.au/media/brochures/
AustraliaBrochFinal081001.pdf
Bontis, N. (2000), “Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure
intellectual capital”, working paper, Queen’s Management Research Centre for
Knowledge-Based Enterprises, Kingston, available at: www.business.queensu.ca/kbe
Brooking, A. (1999), Corporate Memory – Strategies for Knowledge Management, International Intellectual
Thomson Business Press, London.
capital
Canadian Management Accounting (1999), “Canadian Management Accounting Focus Group
Draft: measuring knowledge assets”, Canadian Management Accounting, 16 April.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True Value
by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) (2001), Special Report – Business and Financial 193
Reporting: Challenges from the New Economy, FASB, available at: www.fasb.org
Fitzgerald, B. (2001), “Intellectual capital and law in the digital environment”, Ivey Business
Journal, Vol. 65 No. 4, p. 22.
Frost, A. and Cooke, C. (1999), “Brand vs. reputation: managing and intangible asset”,
Communication World, February/March, available at: www.contextweb.co.uk/news/
cwrep.htm
Gross, C.M., Reischl, U. and Abercrombie, P. (2000), The New Idea Factory: Expanding
Technology Companies with University Intellectual Capital, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
Groves, S. (2002), “Knowledge wins in the new economy”, Records Management Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 2, p. 6.
Guthrie, J. and Petty, R. (2000), “Are companies thinking smart?”, Australian CPA, 19 July, p. 19.
Heffes, E.M. (2001), “Challenging measures for IC”, Financial Executive, July/August, p. 63.
Hrisak, D.M. (2001), “An SEC taskforce suggests heightened financial disclosure”, Managing the
General Ledger, July.
Huseman, C. and Goodman, J.P. (1999), Leading with Knowledge: The Nature of Competition in
the 21st Century, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
ICM Group (1998), “What are the companies currently measuring?”, available at: www.icmgroup.
com/presentpub/LES_MEASUREMENT
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 71-9.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Lev, B. (1999), “Seeing is believing: a better approach to estimating knowledge capital”, CFO
Magazine, April, available at: http://207.87.9.12/html/charts/99Feseei-2.html
Lim, L. and Dallimore, P. (2002), “To the public listed companies from the investment
community”, 5th World Congress on Intellectual Capital Proceedings, 16-18 January.
Lynn, E. (2000), “Intellectual capital”, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 64 No. 3, p. 48.
McCreesh, D. (1998), “Reading between the lines: gain strategic advantage by managing
information and transforming it into knowledge”, CMA – The Management Accounting
Magazine, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 10-11.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1996), The Knowledge-based
Economy, OECD/GD 96 No. 102, OECD, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/s_t/inte/
prod/kbe.htm 102
Osterland, A. (2001), “Treasures revealed (intangible asset accounting)”, CFO, Vol. 17 No. 4,
1 April, available at: www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,25141,00.html
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonette, N.C. and Edvinsson, L. (1997), Intellectual Capital – Navigating the
New Business Landscape, Macmillan Press, London.
JIC Shearer, B. (1999), “Intellectual property management: the critical competency in the knowledge
age enterprise”, European American Business Journal, December.
5,1 Sinclair, J. (2001), “We’re losing the brain race”, IT Employment, 31 July, available at: www.isr.
gov.au/industry/emerging
Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Nicholas Brealey
Publishing, London.
194 Sullivan, P. (2000), Value-driven Intellectual Capital: How to Convert Corporate Assets into
Market Value, Wiley/Arthur Andersen Intellectual Capital Series, Wiley/Arthur Andersen,
Toronto.
Sullivan, P.H. (1998), Profiting from Intellectual Capital – Extracting Value from Innovation, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Sveiby, K.E. (1988), The New Annual Report, available at: www.sveiby.com.au.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring
Knowledge-Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.