Rethinking the liaisons between Intellectual Capital Management and Knowledge Management

Sousa, Célio A.A.; Hendriks, Paul H. J.

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.24/1552

Use this identifier to reference this record.

Name:	Description:	Size:	Format:
Rethinking ICM & KM Liasions (2013).pdf		240.7 KB	Adobe PDF	Download

Send Feedback

Authors

Sousa, Célio A.A.

Hendriks, Paul H. J.

Abstract(s)

ntellectual Capital Management (ICM) and Knowledge Management (KM), two highly popular topics in current management discus sions, are often bracketed together. The common understanding of ICM is that concepts of measurement, reporting and valuation most distinctively define this perspective, whereas KM connects debates about organizational knowledge with possibilities and limita tions of management. That raises the question of how the management focus on knowledge in KM discussions is connected to the valuation and measurement approaches of ICM. An extensive review of the literature shows that knowledge plays a background role in Intellectual Capital (IC) measurement discussions. Referral to knowledge as an intangible asset appears more rhetorical than based on in-depth understanding of what knowledge as an organizational resource or capability is or is not. More particularly, the predomi nant view of knowledge in IC measurement discussions is a neo-functionalist, possession approach, even if flow elements of knowledge are used to supplement stock elements. Critical understanding of knowledge, for instance, as practice-based dispute, are virtually absent from the ICM discussions. What the blind spots identified in the review highlight is that ICM and KM discussions, which are presently mostly developed in isolation, should set up more meaningful and elaborated liaisons than are currently established. Two important areas for building such liaisons include (1) the perusal of the contextual, possibly disputed and power-related nature of knowledge in relation to measurement and (2) developing a systematic approach to understanding what measuring or not measuring does to organizational knowledge.