The objective value of intellectual capital: An empirical-quantitative approach
List of Authors
  • Óscar Teixeira Ramada

Keyword
  • Intellectual Capital, Measurement Method, Core Competencies

Abstract
  • The purpose of this paper is to summarize the Ph.D Thesis in Information Science (2019) which dealt with the calculation of the intellectual capital value at Efacec Power Solutions, SGPS, SA (EPS), on December 31, 2017, a heavily capital intensive company, reflected in the weight of intangible assets over total assets. It was concluded that the value was € 1.908 million, being the sum of 4 core competencies: Development of Technologies, Simulation of Equipment Behaviors and Management of Electrical Networks (Core Competence 2) in the amount of € 766 million, Hardware and Software Design and Development (Core Competence 1), valued at € 670 million, Projection and Exploration of Water Systems and Industrial Installations (Core Competence 4) valued at € 269 million and Solutions for Transportation (Rail, Road and Metro) and Energy for Electric Vehicles and Net-work Management (Core Competence 3) worth € 202 million. Its calculation depended on choices made by the researcher, namely, regarding the evolution of Consolidated Sales and/or Services Provided and Nominal Annual Rate of Change, for a period of 10 years + 1, which has subsequent effects on other items that depend on this baseline. The main conclusion that can be drawn is that the same time horizon, but based on non-annual but monthly or even weekly or, preferably, daily subperiods, could dictate an outcome that would be closer to reality, especially if it had specified other factors such as the qualifications of the workforce and its changes over time. This would have the ability to be more reliable and re-flect the value created by the workforce in its various categories, from its absolute number to a construct that would reveal the aforementioned qualifications and the value created within the company, in this case EPS.

Reference
  • 1. Abdullah, D.; Sofian, S. (2012). The Relationship Between Intellectual Capital and Corporate Performance, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 40, 2012, pp. 292-298.

    2. Andriessen, D. (2004). Making Sense of Intellectual Capital – Designing a Method for the Valuation of Intangibles, Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004.

    3. Arvan, M.; Omidvar, A.; Ghodsi, R. (2016). Intellectual Capital Evaluation Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps: A Scenario-Based Development Planning, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 55, August, 2016, pp. 21-36.

    4. Berzkalne, I.; Zelgalve, E. (2014). Intellectual Capital and Company Value, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 110, January, 2014, pp. 887-896.

    5. Delgado-Verde, M.; Martín-de-Castro, G.; Amores-Salvado, J. (2016). Intellectual Capital and Radical Innovation: Exploring the Quadratic Effects in Technology-Based Manufacturing Firms, Technovation, Volume 54, 2016, pp. 34-47.

    6. EPS (2015, 2016, 2017). Relatório e Contas.

    7. Gadau, L. (2012). The Intellectual Capital – A Significant, But Insufficiently Highlighted Source in the Financial Situations, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, World Conference on Business, Economics and Management, WC-BEM 2012, Volume 62, 2012, pp. 668-671.

    8. Goebel, V. (2015). Estimating a Measure of Intellectual Capital Value to Tests Its Determinants, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 101-120.

    9. Gogan, L.; Draghici, A. (2013). A Model to Evaluate the Intellectual Capital, Procedia Technology, Volume 9, 2013, pp. 867-875.

    10. Kalkan, A.; Bozkurt, Ö.; Arman, M. (2014). The Impacts of Intellectual Capital, Innovation and Organizational Strategy on Firm Performance, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 150, 2014, pp. 700-707.

    11. Kaufmann, L.; Schneider, Y. (1994). Intangibles – A Synthesis of Current Research, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 5, Issue 3, 1994, pp. 366-388. Knol, J.; Linge, R. (2009). Innovative Behaviour: The Effect of Structural And Psychological Empowerment on Nurses, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp. 359-370.

    12. Örnek, A.; Ayas, S. (2015). The Relationship Between Intellectual Capital, Innovative Work Behavior and Business Performance Reflection, Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 195, 2015, pp. 1387-1395.

    13. Palacios, T.; Galván, R. (2007). Intangible Measurement Guidelines: A Comparative Study in Europe, Journal of Capital Intellectual, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 192-204.

    14. Pulic, A. (2000). VAIC – An Accounting Tool for IC Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Volume 20, Issues 5-8, 2000, pp. 702-714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2000.002891.

    15. Ramada, O. (2019). A Proposal to Measure Intellectual Capital Using the Andriessen´s (2004) Method: Application to a Case Study in a National Context (Portugal), Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Science and Technology, Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal, pp. 1-315.

    16. Sekhar, C.; Patwardhan, M.; Vyas, V. (2015). A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS Based Framework for the Prioritization of Intellectual Capital Indicators: A SME´s Perspective, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 189, 2015, pp. 275-284.

    17. Uziene, L. (2015b). Open Innovation, Knowledge Flows and Intellectual Capital, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 213, Issue 1, 2015, pp. 1057-1062.

    18. Vosloban, R. (2012). The Influence of the Employee´s Performance on the Company´s Growth – A Managerial Perspective, Procedia Economics and Finance, Volume 3, 2012, pp. 660-665.

    19. Yildiz, S.; Meydan, C.; Güner, M. (2014). Measurement of Intellectual Capital Components Through Activity Reports of Companies, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 109, 2014, pp. 614-621.

    20. Zhicheng, L.; Zhouer, C.; Shing, L.; Wah, C. (2016). The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Companies´ Performances: A Study Based on MAKE Award Winners and Non-MAKE Award Winner Companies, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 99, 2016, pp. 181-194.