See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344681853

Intellectual Capital

Chapter · October 2020

DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562

CITATION READS
1 865

3 authors, including:

Gürkan Akdağ Zafer Oter

Mersin University Izmir Katip Celebi Universitesi
130 PUBLICATIONS   268 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   228 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

thermal tourism and thermal water View project

cultural heritage valorization, nature schools, tourism and terrorism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gürkan Akdağ on 16 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 1

 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

READINGS IN MANAGEMENT

Edited by Issam A. Ghazzawi, Muharrem Tuna, Aysegul Acar

2020

ISBN:978-1-7321275-6-2

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 2
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

Readings in Management

Editors
Issam A. Ghazzawi, Ph.D., Professor of Management, University of La Verne, California, USA

Issam A. Ghazzawi is Professor of Management and the Sam Walton Fellow at the University of
La Verne. Professor Ghazzawi offers courses in organizational design, organizational theory,
organizational behaviors, and management. He received his Ph.D. from the University of
Pittsburgh; his Master in Labour and Human resources (M.L.H.R.) from The Ohio State
University; and his master’s in business administration (MBA) from Sul Ross State University. He
is a former president of the Western Casewriters Association and currently serves on the Editorial
Review Board of several academic journals. He frequently gives lectures at various international
universities, including the Beijing Institute of Technology “BIT”. He received numerous
distinguished research, academic, and community awards and recognitions.

Muharrem Tuna, Ph.D., Professor of Tourism, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

Muharrem Tuna is Professor of Tourism Management at Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University.
Professor Tuna offers courses in human resources, management & organization, organizational
behaviors, tourism management. He graduated from Gazi University Faculty of Commerce and
Tourism Education Department of Tourism Management Education and a year later he was
appointed research assistant at the same faculty. After completing his graduate and Ph.D. degrees
at Gazi University Institute of Social Sciences Department of Tourism Management, he started to
work as assistant professor. Since 2015, Prof. Dr. Muharrem Tuna has been elected chairman for
the Board of Tourism Academics Association which aims to contribute to the development in
qualitative tourism education and research by creating a network of tourism academics.

Aysegul Acar, Ph.D., Doctor of Tourism Management, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey

Aysegul Acar is Doctor of Tourism Management at Karabuk University. Dr. Acar offers courses
in financial management, managerial accounting, and financial analysis for hospitality enterprises.
She completed her undergraduate studies in Tourism Management at Bogazici University, Turkey.
Prior to achieving her Ph.D. degree in Tourism Management, Dr. Acar completed her master’s
degree at Istanbul University in 2016. Dr. Acar joined Karabuk University as a Research Assistant
in August 2015. As of 2020, Dr. Acar has been working as an Assistant Professor at Karabuk
University, Department of Tourism Management.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 3

 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... i

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1

Benchmarking ......................................................................................................................... 2
Dr. Aysen AKBAS TUNA ...............................................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 23

Decision Making .................................................................................................................... 24

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kemal VATANSEVER .......................................................................................................24

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 51

Stress and Ways of Coping With It ..................................................................................... 52

Asst. Prof. Oğuz NEBİOĞLU ........................................................................................................................52

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 70

Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations .................................................... 71

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Oğuz DİKER .......................................................................................................................71

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................. 96

Diversity Management in Organization.............................................................................. 97

Asst. Prof. Mustafa YILDIRIM......................................................................................................................97

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................... 122

Crisis Management ............................................................................................................. 123

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatih TÜKMEN .................................................................................................................123

CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................... 142

Conflict Management ......................................................................................................... 143

Prof. Dr. Muharrem TUNA & Asst. Prof. Ayşegül ACAR .........................................................................143

CHAPTER 8 ............................................................................................................................... 160

Time and Meeting Management ........................................................................................ 161

Asst. Prof. Tolga GÜL..................................................................................................................................161

CHAPTER 9 ............................................................................................................................... 184

Outsourcing ......................................................................................................................... 185

Asst. Prof. Aziz Gökhan ÖZKOÇ ................................................................................................................185

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 iii
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 6
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

CHAPTER 10 ............................................................................................................................. 209

Groups in Organizations and Team Management .......................................................... 210

Prof. Dr. Ebru İÇİGEN .................................................................................................................................210

CHAPTER 11 ............................................................................................................................. 229

Paradoxical Leadership Behavior ..................................................................................... 230

Prof. Dr. Muharrem TUNA & Res. Asst. İbrahim AKÇA ...........................................................................230

Chapter 12 .................................................................................................................................. 252

Intellectual Capital.............................................................................................................. 253

Res. Asst. Özge ÇALHAN, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gürkan AKDAĞ, & Prof. Dr. Zafer ÖTER .........................253

iv
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 7
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

Chapter 12

252
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 259
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

Intellectual Capital
Res. Asst. Özge ÇALHAN, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gürkan AKDAĞ, & Prof. Dr. Zafer ÖTER
İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir Katip Çelebi Universtiy, Mersin University,

1. Description of Intellectual Capital

The importance of intelligence power, intelligent workers, and information companies is on the
increase. Therefore, the term intellectual capital has been gaining importance.1 When buying a
business, intangibles of the business (valuable opinion, information, specialty, talent, experience,
etc.) are remarkably effective on the purchasing decision. The proportion of intangibles to
tangibles is gradually increasing and this increment expands the variation between the book value
and marketing value of the business. This difference is caused by intellectual capital. In other
words, all intangibles enabling the sustainability of the business create intellectual capital.2
Intellectual capital is “the intellectual material-knowledge, information, intellectual property, and
experience that can be utilized to create wealth”.3 The intellectual capital definition of Skandia is
“the possession of knowledge, applied experience, organizational technology, customer
relationships, and professional skills” which has been simplified to such; human capital plus
structural capital equals intellectual capital. Indeed, an important role of leadership is to convert
human resources into structural capital.4, 5 Intellectual capital consists of the marketing value and
intangible assets of the business. While tangible assets are classified as financial capital, intangible
assets are classified as intellectual capital.6 Information should be converted to intellectual capital
in order that information can be shared or used for the benefit of the business.7 Intellectual capital
refers to vital assets that are knowledge-based and are not shown in the balance sheet completely
but reflect the real value of the business.8 However, considering all definitions about the
intellectual capital, there is no agreement on a universal meaning of intellectual capital yet.
Nevertheless, the common emphasis is that intellectual capital consists of information estate
connected to human.9

2. Characteristics and Components of Intellectual Capital

Intellectual capital shows up with the synergistic action, which was conquered by human capital,
structural capital, relational capital, and their mutual interaction.10 Organizations search for new
learning methods that value creation. Three kinds of capitals complement each other and work
actively. This is the only possible way to talk about intellectual capital. There is not a consensus
on how to determine the characteristics of intellectual capital. Writers define some kinds of
components for intellectual capital according to their definition of intellectual capital and
perspectives. However, all definitions are not different from each other. Sveiby classifies
intangibles into three parts: internal structure; external structure; and employee competence. The
three parts are explained by Petty and Guthrie in detail as follows:

• Internal Structure: It consists of such items as patents, concepts, models research and
development, and computer and administrative systems. These are usually created by the
employees or are brought in. Decisions can be made to invest in or replace these
intangibles. Organizational culture and spirit are also considered part of the internal
structure, as are organizational structure and legal parameters.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 253
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 260
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

• External Structure: It consists of relationships with customers and suppliers, brand

names, trademarks, and reputation. Some of these can be considered proprietary, but only
in a temporal sense, and even then, not with any degree of confidence. For instance, a
company has some influence over the value of its customer relationships; however,
reputation and relationships can change over time and a company might not be able to
control the behaviors of customers or suppliers if they are not compliant. The tenuous
nature of the supplier-firm-customer nexus complicates the measurement process. Hence,
the economic value of this relationship is at present not determined by any generally
accepted definition or measurement system. Employee competence: It refers to the
individual’s education, skills, training, values, experiences, and so forth. The non-revenue
generators are called support staff. As is the case for customers and suppliers, these cannot
be owned by an organization. However, viewed from a value-based perspective, they
should be measured and placed on the balance sheet, as one cannot envisage an
organization without employees. Employee competence requires the capacity to create both
tangible and intangible assets in a wide variety of situations. In knowledge organizations
there is little “machinery” other than the employees.12

All employees are human capital, but not all employees are knowledge workers. Intellectual capital
consists of three components:13

• human capital (employee competence, know-how, work-related knowledge,

innovativeness, education)
• structural capital (cultural, team spirit, copyrights, trademarks, patents, internal
databases, management processes)
• Relational capital (brand, reputation, strategic alliances, customers, licensing,
agreements, distributions channels)

Table 1. Categorisation of Different Kinds of Intangibles According to Years

Author Year Categorisation of Different Kinds of Intangibles
Kaplan and Norton 1992 Internal processes perspective, Customer perspective, Learning and growth
perspective, Financial perspective
Petrash 1996 Human capital
Customer capital
Organizational capital
Haanes and Lowendahl 1997 Competence, Relational
Edvinsson and Malone 1997 Human capital
Structural capital
Sveiby, K.E. 1997 Internal structure, external structure and
competence of personnel
Stewart, T.A. 1998 Human capital, customer capital, structural capital
Bontis, N.; Dragonetti, N.C.; 1999 Human capital, structural capital
Jacobsen, K.; Roos, G.
Canibano, L.; Sanchez, P.; 1999 Human capital, structural capital, relational capital
Chaminade, C.; Olea, M.; Escobar,
C.G.; Garcia-Ayuso, M.
Harrison, S.; Sullivan Sr, P.H. 2000 Human capital, intellectual assets that includes intellectual property
Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C.; Olea, M 2000 Human capital, structural capital, relational capital
Mouritsen, J.; Bukh, P.N.; Larsen, 2002 Authors refer to the categorisation into three classes: human capital, organizational
H.T.; Johansen, M.R. capital, customer capital
Petty, R.; Guthrie, J. 2002 Organizational (structural) capital, human Capital
Ordonez de Pablos, P. 2003 Human capital, relational capital, organizational capital
Source: Kaufmann, Lutz and Yvonne Schneider, (2004) “Intangibles: A synthesis of current research”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 Issue: 3, pp.376; Brennan, Niamh and Brenda Connell (2000) “Intellectual capital: current
issues and policy implications”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 Issue: 3, p.219.

254
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 261
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

Guthrie14 classified the components of intellectual capital and structural capital as intellectual
property (patents, copyrights, trademarks) and infrastructure assets (management philosophy,
corporate culture, management processes, information systems, networking systems, financial
relations). For relational capital components; brands, customers, customer loyalty, company
names, distribution channels, business collaborations, licensing agreements, favorable contracts,
and franchising agreements are to be listed. Human capital includes expertise, education,
vocational qualification, work-related knowledge, work-related competencies, entrepreneurial
spirit, innovativeness, proactive and reactive abilities, and changeability.

2.1. Human Capital

These days, most of the business owners or managers make a great effort to service the information
workers. However, it is known that they can transfer their information workers to other
organizations for consideration. Organizations must learn the effective workforce policy to
monopolise the human capital they have. In this way, they can gain a competitive advantage
against their competitors.13, 14, 15 Employees should benefit from businesses’ opportunities,
transform their information to structural capital, use it productively, and get in good contact with
the customers. Intellectual capital is not only human capital, it also consists of structural and
relational capitals. Human capital is the most difficult part of intellectual capital in terms of both
definition and to recognition.16 Human capital includes human resources in the business, external
and internal resources as well as customers and suppliers. Generally, the term “intellectual capital’’
is considered synonymous with “intangible assets”.17 Businesses should develop human resources
policies aiming to increase organizational commitment for their employees in order to ensure the
retention of them. Capable individuals rely on organizations to reveal their abilities, skills, and
knowledge.18

2.2. Structural Capital

Because employees and customers could leave from the business readily, human capital and
relational capital cannot be permanent in the structural capital. For this reason, it is important to
transform the human and relational capitals to permanent structural capital. Structural capital is
both a critical connection which enables the intellectual capital to be measured in the
organizational frame and also the knowledge source which plays a significant role in
organizational business processes.19

It is not enough for employees to have high potential. If they are not supported by a strong
structure, they will never be able to exhibit their full potential. Therefore, some researchers state
that structural capital is more important than human capital. Organizational structure and climate
are the most important factors in an organization, affecting the institutional development and
creation of the structural capital.20 Structural capital is an organizational capacity and developed
to meet the necessity of market. It involves the business’ knowledge and level as well as the
acquisition, processing, and implementation of data.21 Structural capital can be defined as a
structure, strategy, process, and system that supplies to perform customer demands and
sustainability of the business. It is information that remains in the business after employees quit
the business. It is a system that provides organizational culture, climate, structure, management
philosophy, information transfer, storage, and sharing.22 Structural capital allows the organization

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 255
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 262
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

to exploit its intellectual capital. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, internal databases, computer
systems, and company intranets help manage knowledge as well as the structural capital.23

2.3. Relational Capital

Relational capital involves the persons and institutions that are placed around the operation-
external environment. These are important elements for an institution’s activities because they can
affect the institutions’ current needs and future expectations. It is clear that one of the elements,
which takes a turn to the operation’s activities, is customers.24 Relational capital refers to factors
related with organization-internal and -external environment. Businesses should make good use of
the information they obtain during relationships in order to be able to have a strong hand against
their competitors. One of the most important elements of the external environment is the customer.
Many businesses’ primary goal is to ideally meet their customers’ expectations and achieve
customer satisfaction. Relational capital’s main subject is information obtained by the organization
through marketing channels and customer relations. In addition to those with customers; relations
with suppliers, partners, and financiers are also included in relational capital.25 Intangibles should
be managed by tools to create customer value because intellectual capital is not imitated.26
Relationship with the customer, customer loyalty, and the organization image for the customer are
very crucial for relational capital. Relational capital encompasses the relationships with customers,
suppliers, and network externalities.27

3. The Historical Development of Intellectual Capital

The first studies regarding intellectual capital were carried out in 1969 by John Kenneth Galbraith.
Stewart describes intellectual capital as a whole thing that provides competitive advantage to
business known by employees28. In the early 1980s, managers, academics, and consultants around
the world slowly became aware that firms have intangible assets called intellectual capital and this
is a major determinant for the corporation’s profit. In Japan, Hiroyuki Itami concluded from his
analysis that intangible assets are “unattainable with money alone, are capable of multiple,
simultaneous use, yield multiple simultaneous benefits”. In Sweden, Karl-Eric Sveiby published a
book in 1986 “The Knowledge Company”, elaborating on how to manage these intangible assets.29

Table 2. A Chronological Review of the Historical Development of Intellectual Capital

Period Progress
Early 1980s General notion of intangible value
Mid-1980s The “information age” takes hold and the gap between book value and market value widens noticeably for many companies
Late 1980s Early attempts by practitioner consultants to construct statements/accounts that measure intellectual capital (Sveiby, 1988)
Early 1990s Initiatives to systematically measure and report on company stocks of intellectual capital to external parties, in 1990,
Skandia AFS appoints Leif Edvinsson “Director of Intellectual
Capital”. This is the first time that the role of managing intellectual capital is elevated to a position of formal status and
given a status of corporate legitimacy.
Mid-1990s Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) [6] present their highly influential work on “the knowledge creating company”.
The book concentrates on the “knowledge’’ and the distinction between knowledge and intellectual capital. Also, in 1994,
a supplement to Skandia’s annual report is produced, focusing on presenting an evaluation of the company’s stock of
intellectual capital. Another sensation is caused in 1995 when Celemi used a “knowledge audit” to offer a detailed
assessment of the state of its intellectual capital. Pioneers of the intellectual capital movement published bestseller books
on the subject (Kaplan and Norton, 1996; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Sveiby
1997).
Late 1990s Intellectual capital becomes a popular topic with research and academic conferences, working papers, and other
publications.
Source: Petty, Richard and Guthrie James. (2000). “Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and
management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 Issue: 2, p.161.

256
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 263
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

Although much of the work undertaken prior to the mid-1990s may be categorised as being first-
stage in nature, we do not view the line between first- and second-stage development of the
intellectual capital movement as primarily a chronological one. Rather, the distinction relies more
upon the substance of the work undertaken by the interested party. Efforts that concentrate on the
“why, what, and where” issues deal primarily with the understanding or definition of the
intellectual capital domain and may be characterized as first-stage in nature. Investigations that
focus on the “how” are second-stage in nature and deal mainly with the process of measuring and
managing the intellectual capital that has already been identified and situated within the context of
the firm.30

4. The Importance of Intellectual Capital

The importance of up-to-date information is on the rise day by day. With the speeding of
information transfer, intellectual capital emerged during this period of change. The concept of
intellectual capital attracts attention to the importance of intangibles playing an important role on
doing knowledge-based business and competitiveness. The most important point referred to by
intellectual capital is that information as a new factor of production leads to a new transformation.
Businesses must know what intellectual capital is and how intellectual capital should be managed
and reported in order to increase their long-term incomes, compete, make a difference, and
improve performance.

4.1. The Socio-Economic Importance of Intellectual Capital

Information is the core business element of our day and time. Thus, businesses can gain
competitive advantage by using information. Thanks to the developments in technology, the
information revolution has occurred. In this way, information has become the most important
economic power in business. Businesses give great importance to intangibles in order to provide
sustainable growth and development. Intangible assets such as physical assets create shareholder
value when they are expected to generate above-average returns. A defining characteristic of firms
with a high proportion of intangible assets is their reliance on knowledge workers and the
management of knowledge assets in adding value to their products and relationships.31

4.2. The Importance of Intellectual Capital for Businesses

Businesses can have profit advantages through sales, licensing royalties, joint venture income,
price premiums, increased sales through conveyed sales, and repeat sales.32 Most of the institutions
work with a customer-oriented agenda and give great importance to customer loyalty and
complaints. One of the most important elements of intellectual capital is relational capital, which
involves becoming customer-oriented and developing good relationships. When viewed from this
aspect, it is seen that intellectual capital has a big effect on business success. This topic is
considered important for businesses and success is an obligation for the business to survive. In that
vein, intellectual capital emerges as a real source of wealth for the business. Economic structure
of the present-day makes the circulation of intangible assets a current issue with the developing
technology and globalization in the competition. The businesses that do not pursue these
innovations cannot survive. Therefore, they should understand intellectual capital and its
importance, and stand against their competitors by utilising intellectual capital.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 257
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 264
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

4.3. The Strategic Importance of Intellectual Capital

Businesses can have profit advantages through market share, leadership, standard setting, and
name recognition (branding, trademarking, and reputation).33 Intellectual capital is critically
important in knowledge-based organizations and is becoming increasingly important in other types
of organizations as well. Accordingly, it is critically important that intellectual assets be well-
understood and effectively managed if organizations are to compete successfully in today’s world
economy. Intellectual capital should be interiorised and institutionalised. A business can make a
difference and gain competitive advantage by learning how to manage intellectual capital.
Businesses should transform both the human and relational capitals to structural capital in order to
compete, take advantage of the market, and improve. For this reason, businesses have their
mission, vision, value, philosophy, goal, and principle adopted by their employees and try to
enhance their employees’ knowledge and skills, designate the participative management
philosophy, and nurture team spirit between the employees.33

Whether the roles for intellectual capital are determined to be tactical or strategic, immediate or
long-term, and internally or externally oriented; it should be clear that there are many more roles
for intellectual capital to play in firms who have a definite decision with regard to what they wish
to achieve in the future. Such decisions make it easier to determine how intellectual capital, as well
as other strategic assets of the firm, can be used to achieve the desired results.34

5. Managing Intellectual Capital

In today’s global businesses, intellectual capital has become one of the key elements for
organizational performance improvement. Enterprises need to manage intellectual capital in order
to gain competitive edge.35 Management of intellectual capital is misunderstood at times and used
instead of information management or vice versa. These two terms are closely related; however,
intellectual capital management is a term with a much broader context in comparison to
information management. Information management is about transforming the information and data
of a firm into human and relational capital. Intellectual capital management is about developing
value-generating items within an organization, transforming them to assets in the market, and
finally making calculations about them. Management of intellectual capital is one of the important
managerial responsibililites.36

The main purpose of intellectual capital management is to increase competitive edge, managing
intangible assets, defining them, evaluating present and future values of the firm and relationships
among them, measuring the values, discovering non-material activities, and finally becoming
capable of managing these activities efficiently.37 On the other hand, another objective of
intellectual capital management is to focus on intellectual reserves of the firms that are not
considered welfare resources. By focusing on them, the firm tries to develop organizational skills
and leads company strategies, defines the mission and vision, and protects them.38

6. The Measurement of Intellectual Capital

As intellectual capital gained importance in scientific spheres and business practices that paid
attention to this concept; a gradual interest has grown for the measurement methods of intellectual

258
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 265
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

capital. In the literature there are multiple approaches to measure intellectual capital. In sum, they
are basically grouped under two main categories.

The first approach to measure intellectual capital is based on the assessment of intellectual
capital components. Approaches based on intellectual capital elements have been in use for years
with different practical applications. The second approach used to measure intellectual capital
concentrates on methods for the total measurement on enterprise scale. These methods
measuring intellectual capital on the enterprise scale generally use financial assessment techniques
for their measurement.39

6.1. Methods Measuring Intellectual Capital based on Components

These methods mainly concentrate on measuring parts of intellectual capital without a holistic
point of view. Human capital, structural capital, and customer capital are used as basis during
measurement. The most popular methods in this measurement approach are grouped under 5 main
categories as follows; Skandia Navigator, Balanced Scorecard- BSC, Intangible Assets Monitor,
Value Added Intellectual Coefficient- VAIC, Intellectual Capital Index (IC- Index), and
Technology.

6.1.1. Skandia Navigator

The first method of component-based intellectual capital measurement is Skandia Navigator. This
method focuses on five dimensions that are financial, customer, processes, research-development,
and human.

The financial dimension covers several ratios regarding key performance data, balance sheet,
income statements, and other financial data. The customer dimension deals with the market
penetration competence of the organization. The dimension regarding processes focuses on
operational methods and activities used as well as information technology support levels. Within
this dimension, the number of customers per employee and the amount of managerial cost per
employee are measured. Research and development (innovation) dimension is interested in
measuring whether the resources are correctly allocated and oriented for future business types and
methods. Within this dimension, data such as employee satisfaction index, marketing cost per
customer, and time spent for education are measured. The human dimension measures employee
turnover rate, managerial ratios, gender-based ratios, education/training cost per employee,
educational level of employees, and leadership development.40

6.1.2. Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

Balanced Scorecard is a derivative of the strategic management approach. Robert S. Kaplan from
Harvard University and David P. Morton from the Renaissance Consultancy Firm developed this
method because they believed traditional accounting methods that were used to measure enterprise
performances were outdated. As a result, BSC has evolved as an innovative method.41 This system
focuses on the long-term in achieving strategic goals of the organization. Accordingly, the system
is a managerial one that tries to unify knowledge, energy, and competencies of human resources
in the organization. As a whole, this system is designed as a model to monitor enterprise
performances.42 BSC creates a framework for strategic measurement and management by
converting organizational vision and strategy into a detailed performance measurement template.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 259
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 266
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

At the heart of the model the vision and strategic nucleus of the firm lies. This core (vision and
strategies) is interrelated with four different components: financial dimension; customer
dimension; process dimension; and learning/development dimension. Under each dimension there
are four topics: goals, criteria, objectives, and entrepreneurship. These topics are studied in order
to assess the current situation of the firm. Moreover, these studies offer opportunities to create
implications for future.43

6.1.3. Intangible Assets Monitor

The third method of measuring intellectual capital on the basis of its elements is the indicator of
intangible assets. The method called “Intangible Assets Monitor” was developed by Erik Sveiby
as a way of measuring the intangible assets and reporting with the help of certain indicators.44
Human resources is the only profit-making element in the organization. This is because all the
other factors and structures depend on human activity, and people’s competence is the main
indicator of performance. Human competence shows its effect on two structures: internal structure
and external structure.45 The internal structure of an organization includes management, owned
software, intellectual property assets, processes, etc., while the external structure includes brand,
relations with customers and suppliers, etc.46 The method measures three types of intangible assets
(external structure, internal structure, and competencies) with four types of indicators
(growth/development, regeneration, productivity, and risk/stability) that provide value creation.

6.1.4. Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC)

The fourth method of measuring intellectual capital is the Value-Added Intellectual Coefficient
(VAIC) Method that takes into account the measurement of the information of enterprises from a
different point of view. The VAIC method is an analytical method that is used to measure the
value-creating effectiveness of tangible and intangible assets owned by the enterprise.47
Considering the value-added concept of the model, being a standardised method on measurable
data and providing the possibility of comparison can be counted among the other advantages of
this method.48 The implementation of the value-added intellectual coefficient method and the
calculations to be performed are carried out in five stages.49

• Stage 1: The value-added created by the enterprise is determined. Value-added is the

difference between all income from the sale of goods and services except for the labor
expenditure.
Value Added = Income-Expenditures.
• Stage 2: The effectiveness of tangible capital is calculated. The indicator of effectiveness
is to compose the possible value-added by utilising the physical and financial intellectual
capital. The value-added (VA) was composed to estimate tangible capital (TC) assets
(physical capital financial capital). The value is indicative of the value-added of one unit
of material capital, indicating the material capital effectiveness (MCE).
Value Added/Material Capital Elements: Material Capital Effectiveness
• Stage 3: Human Capital Effectiveness is calculated. The effectiveness of the human capital
is reached by dividing the value-added by the amount of human capital (HC) (cumulative
labor expenditure). The value indicates the amount of added-value created with a single-
unit investment made to employee and expresses the Human Capital Effectiveness (HCE).
Value Added/Human Capital: Human Capital Effectiveness.

260
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 267
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

• Stage 4: The Structural Capital Effectiveness is calculated. Structural Capital (SC) is the
difference between Value Added (VA) and Human Capital (HC). By dividing structural
capital into value-added, Structural Capital Effectiveness (SCE) that represents the share
of Structural Capital in the creation of value added is calculated.
Structural Capital/Value Added= Structural Capital Effectiveness.
• Stage 5: Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) is calculated. This is equal to the
total amounts of MCE, HCE, and SCE in previous stages. The greater the added-value of
the enterprise, the greater the added-value of the enterprise’s total resources.
TC+HCE+SC= Intellectual Value-Added Coefficient.

6.1.5. Intellectual Capital Index (IC- Index)

The intellectual capital index defines intellectual capital through human capital and structural
capital components and defines structural capital through infrastructure capital and innovation
capital components. The method uses all the indicators of intellectual capital elements to calculate
a single intellectual capital index.50 In this case, the intellectual capital of the enterprise is
expressed and evaluated as a whole.51 The intellectual capital index categories are shown in detail
in the Table 4.

Table 3. The Intellectual Capital Index Categories

Customer Capital Index Human Capital Index
i. Growth in the number of relationships i. Providing the Key success factors
ii. Growth in trust ii. Employee value creation
iii. Keeping Customers iii. The effectiveness and efficiency of in-service training
iv. Productivity and quality of distribution channels
Innovation Capital Index Infrastructure Capital Index
i. Ability to create new business lines i. Efficiency
ii. Ability to create good products ii. Effectiveness
iii. Growth iii. Benefit from key success factors
iv. Ability to improve productivity iv. Distribution efficiency
Source: Van Den Berg, H. A. (2006). Models of Intellectual Capital Valuation: A Comparative Evaluation.
Models of IC Valuation, pp: 21.

The intellectual capital index consists of four categories. The weighted ratios in this category are
as follows: the growth in the number of relationships, growth in confidence, retention of customers,
and productivity of the distribution channels. The second category includes the human capital
index. Human capital weighs supplying the key success factors, creating value per employee, and
effectiveness of in-service training, respectively. Structural capital consists of two categories as
innovation capital and infrastructure capital. While the innovation capital index involves the ability
to create new business lines, create good products, and develop growth and productivity; the
infrastructure capital index involves the effectiveness, efficiency, using of key success factors, and
distribution efficiency.52

6.1.6. The Technology Broker Method

The last method of measuring intellectual capital based on its elements is the Technology Broker
method. The Technology Broker method, getting into the act of under the consulting firm managed
by Annie Brooking, was developed in 1996 in order to support the strategic planning in the
enterprises. According to Brooking’s approach, intellectual capital components are composed of

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 261
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 268
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

four elements; market assets; human-oriented assets; assets linked to intellectual property; and
structural assets.53

This method first identifies intellectual capital through a questionnaire consisting of 20 questions.
After this test, the organization’s ability to comply with the questionnaire is evaluated. The fewer
the questions fully responded to by the organization, the greater the need for backing its intellectual
capital structure.54

In the second phase, control questions are asked about intellectual asset groups defined in
Brooking’s model. After receiving the responses to these questions, a measurement is done to see
how much the related intellectual asset group contributes to the total enterprise’s intellectual
capital. During this phase, the measurement team asks 47 questions about market assets, 22
questions about intellectual property assets, 51 questions about human-centered assets, and 58
questions about infrastructure assets. Consequently, a total of 178 questions are used for
measurement.55

The most obvious shortcoming of the Technology Broker model lies in the qualitative responses
given to control questions regarding intellectual assets, since these replies directly produce
monetary values of assets. For instance, measurement based on “cost approach” calculates the
regeneration cost of the asset as the only value of the asset. However, by doing so, this approach
neglects the authentic and realistic value of the asset that creates competitive advantage.

On the other hand, the market approach has a weakness since efficient market-based prices to be
used for intellectual asset valuation are not readily available. Income approach produces similar
problems. In this approach, the fact that cash flow models are based on uncertainty creates
unreliable results and makes the measurement problematic.56 There are other types of component-
based intellectual capital measurements such as “intellectual capital rating”, “DATI Project”,
“MERITUM Project”, and “OECD Project”, all of which use different calculation techniques.57

6.2. Methods for Measuring Intellectual Capital by Enterprise

The methods based on the measurement of intellectual capital not on the intellectual capital
elements owned by the companies but on the values of the enterprises are examined in detail below.

6.2.1. Market Value - Book Value Method

The first method of measuring intellectual capital on an enterprise is the method that compares the
market value with the book value. In this method, the market value of the enterprise is determined
first. Then, the book value of the enterprise is determined and included in the account. In order to
find the intellectual capital, the figures are taken away from one another. The difference between
the book value and market value reveals the intellectual capital.58

MV=Market Value= Market Value of Enterprise

BV= Book Value= Book Value of the Enterprise
IC= Intellectual Capital= The Intellectual Capital of the Enterprise
IC= MV-BV

262
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 269
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

6.2.2. Market Value / Book Value Method

The second method of measuring intellectual capital for an enterprise is the intellectual capital
ratio formula, which provides the result by dividing the market value and the book value by one.
With this method, the market value of the enterprise is determined. After then, the carrying amount
of the enterprise is determined and included in the account. In order to find the intellectual capital,
the figures are divided.

MV= Market Value= Market Value of Enterprise

BV= Book Value= Book Value of the Enterprise
IC= Intellectual Capital= The Intellectual Capital of the Enterprise
IC= MV/BV

The obtained number shows the ratio of intellectual capital that the assets of the company have.
There are three main problems in the use of this ratio. The first one is that the stock market is in
constant motion and reacts strongly to factors beyond the control of business management. The
second one is that both the book value and the market value are shown differently than they are.
The third one is that intangible assets do not provide information beyond the value.59

6.2.3. The Tobin Q Rate

The Tobin Q Rate is a method developed by James Tobin on the purpose of estimating the
investment decision. The Q ratio in this method refers to the market value of the company that is
formed in the market divided by the renewal cost of the existing assets of the enterprise.59, 60

Q= Market Value of Business/Cost of Renovating Business Assets.

The calculations in the Tobin Q method, regardless of the interest rates, use the cost of replacing
the assets of the enterprise. This method is very similar to the market value/book value method.
But, in the Tobin Q method, the book value is not used when making calculations, instead, the
replacement costs are used.61 The Q value can be equal to 1, less than 1, and greater than 1. If the
ratio is less than 1, it is a sign of negativity for intellectual capital. This situation indicates that the
enterprise does not have intellectual capital on an asset basis and the level of return of assets does
not meet its value. If the ratio is greater than 1, it is a sign of positivity for the enterprise. This is
because it means that the enterprise has high intellectual values and obtains higher returns from
these assets.62 If the Q ratio is greater than 1, the return on assets is higher than the cost of
replacement. In this case, the investment tendency of enterprises increases. If the Q ratio is less
than 1, the company may not invest in new investments.63

6.2.4. The Return on Assets Method (ROAM)

The calculated intangible value method arises from the need to find a value that can be shown as
a warrant to banks in the information-based enterprises. Providing the entities to banks as a warrant
is a serious problem for the information-intensive enterprises with insufficient physical assets. The
other name of the method is NIC method. In this method, the difference between the firm’s market
value and book value is defined as “added value” and it is assumed that the market value reflects
not only physical assets but also a component that can be attributed to intangible company assets.64
This method completely benefits from financial data and accepts the intellectual capital of the

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 263
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 270
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

enterprise as a whole. In the method, the data of the last three years is predicated in terms of the
accuracy of the calculations. Calculated tangible assets method consists of seven stages.65

Table 4. Determining the Firm Value with the Calculated Intangible Value Method
No Steps
1 Calculation of three-year average profit before tax.
2 Having a three-year average of the tangible assets in the period-end balance sheet.
3 The profit before tax is divided by the average value of tangible assets and the return on tangible assets is calculated.
4 The yield of three-year tangible assets of the sector is calculated.
5 Any other entity in the sector will be able to earn the same amount of tangible assets. The result of the profit before tax is deducted
from the result of the surplus found.
6 The three-year average tax rate is calculated. After multiplying the three-year tax rate by the surplus, this result is subtracted from the
surplus.
7 The result for calculating the net present value is divided by the capital cost of the entity.
Source: Bölükbaşı, Yunus (2014). Entelektüel Sermayenin İşletme Bazında Ölçülmesinde Kullanılan Yöntemler Ve
Sigorta Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B. Dergisi. 36 (1), 425-447.

In summary, the calculated method of intangible values uses the sector averages to calculate the
return of tangible assets and measures the level of intellectual capital with returns exceeding the
sector average.66

6.2.5. Economic Value Added (EVA)

The last one in the methods that measure intellectual capital is the economic value-added method.
EVA is reached by deducting the total cost of the capital used to obtain the income from the
company activities. According to that criterion, in order to create value, it is needed to profit above
the total capital cost.67 In the broadest sense, the economic value-added method used in both the
accounting and finance fields is an instrument that measures whether the entity can achieve a
satisfactory return on its investments. In this respect, the methods used to evaluate the net present
value of the investments and based on discounted cash flows are now expressed as the
reorganisation of the profit method.68, 69, 70, 71, 72

WACC= Weighted Average Cost of Capital

PAP= Post-Tax Activity Profit
NP= Non-interest Payables
TR= Total Resources
EVA= Economic Value Added
EVA= PAP-[WACC*(TR-NP)]

Summary

This chapter starts with the theoretical background of the concept of intellectual capital. After a
thorough literature analysis, the chapter continues with the explanation of methods used to measure
intellectual capital. Intellectual capital is a critical concept in contemporary business regardless of
the industry. Since the industrial revolution, business styles have been constantly changing and the
result has been the supremacy of intelligence over brute force. After machines of industrial
revolution, computers and software have changed the businesses. Then, currently, robotics and
artificial intelligence are changing the scene. Intellectual capital has become a key competitive
tool for firms in today’s business environment.

264
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 271
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

References
1
Erkal, Zekeriya E. (2006). Entelektüel Sermaye: Ölçülmesi ve Raporlanması, Derin Publishing, p. 41.
2
Önce, Saime. (1999). Muhasebe bakış açısı ile Entelektüel Sermaye, Anadolu Üniversitesi Publishing, p. 2.
3
Stewart, T. A. (1997). Entelektüel Sermaye, Kuruluşların Yeni Zenginliği. (çev. Nurettin Elhüseyni), Kontent
Publishing, İstanbul, p. 72.
4
Edvinsson, Leif. (1997). “Developing Intellectual Capital At Scandia”, Long Range Planning. Vol: 30, No:3,
pp:368.
5
Ercan, Metin Kamil, M. Başaran Öztürk, Kartal Demirgüneş. (2003). Değere dayalı yönetim ve Entelektüel
Sermaye, Gazi Publishing, Ankara. p. 103.
6
Uzay, Ş. and Savaş, O. (2003). “Entelektüel Sermayenin Ölçülmesi: Mobilya Sektöründe Karşılaştırmalı Bir
Uygulama Örneği, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Issue: 20, p. 165.
7
Pirtini, Serdar. (2004). Pazarlama Yönetimi Açısından Entelektüel Sermaye, Türkmen Publishing, p. 47.
8
.Yıldız, Sebahattin. (2010). Entelektüel Sermaye Teori ve Araştırma, İstanbul, p. 31.
9
. Arıkboğa, F. Şebnem. (2003). Entelektüel Sermaye, Derin Publishing, p. 73.
10
.Arıkboğa, op. cit, p. 76.
11
.Pirtini, op. cit, p. 47.
12
.Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000). “Intellectual Capital Literature Review: Measurement, Reporting And
Management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1, Issue: 2, p. 244.
13
.Seetharaman, A. and Kevin Lock Teng Low, A.S. Saravanan, (2004) “Comparative JustificationOn Intellectual
Capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol: 5 Issue: 4, p. 523.
14
.Guthrie, J. (2001) “The Management, Measurement And The Reporting of Intellectual Capital”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol: 2 Issue: 1, p. 136.
15
.Aşıkoğlu, R., M. Kurt and K. Özcan. (2008). Entelektüel Sermaye Teori, Uygulama ve Yeni Perspektifler, Gazi
Publishing, Ankara, p. 39.
16
.Önce, op. cit, p. 24.
17
.Petty and Guthrie, op. cit, p. 158.
18
.Görmüş, A. Ş. (2009). “Entelektüel Sermaye ve İnsan Kyanakları Yönetiminin Artan Önemi”, Afyon Kocatepe
Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Vol: 11, No: 1, p. 64.
19
.Ercan, Öztürk and Demirgüneş, op. cit, p. 112.
20
.Arıkboğa, op. cit, p. 93-94.
21
.Önce, op. cit, p. 24.
22
.Akyüz, Ömer Faruk. (2011). İnsan ve Bilgi Ekseninde Entelektüel Sermayenin Etkin Yönetimi, Cemofset, p. 67.
23
.Seetharaman, Lock and. Saravanan, op. cit, p. 524.
24
.Arıkboğa, op. cit, p. 100.
25
.Pirtini, op. cit, p. 24.
26
.Pirtini, op. cit, p. 26.
27
.Seetharaman, Lock and. Saravanan, op. cit, p. 524.
28
.Stewart, op. cit, p. 13.
29.
Harrison, S. and Sullivan, P.H. (2000). “Profiting from intellectual capital: Learning From Leading Companies”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol: 1 Issue: 1, p: 33.
30.
Petty and Guthrie, op. cit, p. 62.
31
.Seetharaman, Lock and. Saravanan, op. cit, p. 523.
32
.Harrison and Sullivan, . cit, p. 36.
33
.Harrison and Sullivan, . cit, p. 36.
34.
Sullivan, P. H. (1999). “Profiting From Intellectual Capital”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 Issue: 2,
p. 137.
35
.Marr, B., Gupta, O., Pike, S. & Roos, G. (2003). “Intellectual Capital And Knowledge Management
Effectiveness”, Management Decision, 41(8), p. 772.
36
.Ölçer, F. ve Şanal, M. (2007). “İşletmelerde Entelektüel Sermaye Yönetimi” Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Volume: 16, Issue: 1, s. 481.
37.
Sanchez, P.; Chaminade, C. Olea, M. (2000). “Manegement of Intangibles, an Attempt to Build a Theory”, Jounal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol: 1, No: 4, p. 312.
38
Akyüz, cit, p. 116.
39
Özevren, M. and Yıldız, S. (2010). “Entelektüel Sermayenin Ölçüm Yöntemleri ve Kriterlerinin Belirlenmesi
Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Volume: XXIX, Issue: 2, p. 180.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 265
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 272
 Ghazzawi et al.: Readings in Management

40
Demir, A. S. ve Taşkın, H. (2008). “İşletme Performansı Ölçme Modellerinin Karşılaştırılması: Kuantum
Performansı, Maddi Olmayan Varlıkların İzlenmesi, Performans Prizması ve Skandia Kılavuzu
Modelleri”, Journal of Yaşar University, 3 (11), p. 1699.
41
Baynal, K. ve Karasakal, O. (2008). “İşletmelerde Performans Ölçümlerinin Balanced Scorecard ile
Değerlendirilmesi ve Bir Uygulama”, Yöneylem Araştırması / Endüstri Mühendisliği – XXVIII. Ulusal
Kongresi, Bildiriler Kitabı: p. 2.
42
Kutlu, Ş. (2008). Entelektüel Sermayenin Hesaplanmasında Muhasebe Bilgi Sisteminin Katkısı: Katılım
Bankalarında Bir Uygulama. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Isparta: Süleyman Demirel
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, p. 22.
43
Akdağ, G. (2012). Otel İşletmelerinde Entelektüel Sermaye ve Örgüt Performansı İlişkisi: Akdeniz Bölgesindeki
Dört ve Beş Yıldızlı Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi) Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir, p. 40.
44
Sveiby, K. E., ve Barchan, M. (2000). Measuring The Presenting Intangible Assets: The Intangible Assets
Monitor, Charter,71(7), p. 47.
45
Nazari, J. A. (2010). An Investigation of the Relationship between the intellectual capital components and firm’s
financial performance. (Doktora tezi). University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
46
Bayraktaroğlu, A. E. (2015). Türk İmalat Sanayiinde Faaliyet Gösteren Firmaların Entelektüel Sermaye Kullanım
Etkinliği ve Firma Performansı İlişkisi, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen
Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, p. 41.
47
Kayalı, C.A., Yereli, A.N, ve Ada, Ş. (2007). Entelektüel Katma Değer Katsayısı Yöntemi Kullanılarak
Entelektüel Sermayenin Firma Değeri Üzerindeki Etkisinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Celal
Bayar Üniversitesi Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 14 (1), p. 71.
48
Kendirli, Selçuk; K. Fatih. (2015). Entelektüel Performansı Üzerinde Etkisi: Borsa İstanbul’da İşlem Gören
Bilişim Şirketeri Üzerine Bir Uygulama, Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 4 (1), p. 35.
49
Erkal, Z. E. (2005). Entelektüel Sermayenin Ölçülmesi, Raporlanması ve İMKB’ye Kayıtlı Teknoloji Şirketlerine
Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü.
50
Ercan, Öztürk and Demirgüneş, op. cit, p. 112.
51
Bayraktaroğlu, op. cit, p. 43.
52
Akdağ, op. cit, p. 112.
53
Rodov, I. and P. Leliaert. (2002). “FIMIAM: Financial Method of Intangible Assets Measurement”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol.3. No.3, p. 329.
54
Sitar, A. S. and Vasic, V. (2012). Measuring Intellectual Capital: Lessons Learned from a Practical
Implementation, p. 342.
55
Bontis, N. (2001). “Assessing Knowledge Assets: A Review of The Models Used To Measure Intellectual
Capital”, International Journal of Management Reviews.
56
Özsoy, İ. (2006). Entelektüel Sermayenin Ölçülmesi ve İMKB’de İşlem Gören Tekstil Firmalarına Uygulanması.
Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, p.
47.
57
Erkal, op. cit, p. 89.
58
Hobikoğlu, E. H. (2011). “Entelektüel Sermayenin Önemi, Sınıflandırılması ve Ölçme Yöntemleri: Kuramsal Bir
Çerçeve”, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (1), p. 92.
59
Stewart, op. cit, p. 229.
60
Roos, G. and Roos, J. (1997). “Measuring your Company’s Intellectual Performance”, Long Range Planning, Vol.
30, June1997, p. 4.
61
Çetin, A. (2005). “Entelektüel Sermaye ve Ölçülmesi”, Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi
Dergisi, 20 (1), p.365.
62
Çıkrıkçı, M., ve Daştan, A. (2002). Entelektüel Sermayenin Temel Finansal Tablolar Aracılığıyla Sunulması.
Bankacılar Dergisi, 43, 25.
63
Stewart, op. cit,
64
Stewart, op. cit, 302.
65
Bölükbaşı, Yunus (2014). “Entelektüel Sermayenin İşletme Bazında Ölçülmesinde Kullanılan Yöntemler Ve
Sigorta Sektöründe Bir Araştırma”, Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B. Dergisi. 36 (1), p. 435.
66
Tseng, C. Y. and Goo, Y. J. J. (2005). “Intellectual Capital and Corporate Value in an Emerging Economy:
Empirical Study of Taiwanese Manufacturers”, R&D Management, 35(2), p. 192.

266
Published by Scholar Commons, 2020 273
 University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing, Vol. 13 [2020], No. 9781732127562, Art. 1

67
Töpfer, A. (2007). Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Anwendungs- und prozessorientierte Grundlagen, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2. überarbeitete Auflage, p. 1124.
68
Jackson, A. (1996). The How and Why of EVA at CS First Boston. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 9(1), p.
98.
69
Brennan, Niamh and Brenda Connell (2000) “Intellectual Capital: Current Issues And Policy Implications”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol: 1 Issue: 3, pp:206-240.
70
Kaufmann, Lutz and Yvonne Schneider, (2004) “Intangibles: A synthesis of current research”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol:5, Issue: 3, p. 219.
71
McElroy, Mark W. (2002). “Social Innovation Capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol: 3, No: 1, p. 32.
72
Van Den Berg, H. A. (2006). Models of Intellectual Capital Valuation: A Comparative Evaluation.Models of IC
Valuation, p. 21.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/m3publishing/vol13/iss9781732127562/1 267
DOI: 10.5038/9781732127562 274
View publication stats