“Technologically advanced and custom-made service industries: how to measure Intellectual Capital?

"An increasing number of firms begin reporting more about the intangible aspects of their business even without the force of regulations. This trend is especially evident in Europe with various initiatives by the European Commission (e.g. projects such as Metitum, E*Know Net, Prism, The Danish Department of Trade and Industry).. The purpose of our paper is to analyse the transition from measurement to management in relation to intellectual capital. This means understanding the relationship between firms’ intangible resources on one hand and strategies, operational activities and organizational contexts on the other.. The paper therefore studies how information gathered about a firm’s Intellectual Capital will help the management control process develop intangible resources in an organisational context (see Mouritsen et al. 2001; Mouritsen and Larsen 2005). . We address this topic from both a theoretical and an empirical point of view.. The theoretical paradigm underlying our research is the interpretivist model. In light of interpretivism, sociological phenomena cannot simply be observed but must also be interpreted by the researcher since the process of understanding derives from deductive-inductive development. . Consequently, a qualitative method has been followed - focused on one case study. The case method (Yin, 1994) is generally aimed at detailing the principal characteristics of the phenomena and understanding the dynamics of a given process. . The case study involves a company that designs, develops and integrate Large Systems for Homeland Protection. It counts about 4,200 employees and it has a customer base in no less than 150 countries. The firm is a leader in research and development thanks to annual investments amounting to 20% of the production value.. Indeed, the case study allow us to show how intellectual capital information and measurement can be a starting point for management control processes. . We believe it is important to ask ourselves “why”, “what”, “how” and “when” in order to draw up a “useful” instead of “fashionable” IC statement. So far the basic guideline of our research is that one should consider the different information needs of a company’s stakeholders (Freeman 1984). External stakeholders (i.e. investors, lenders, trade creditors, employees and others) users who wish to assess the stewardship or accountability of management for the resources entrusted to it in order to make their economic decisions. Internal stakeholders (i. e. the management of an enterprise) are users who need Intellectual Capital information supporting planning, decision-making and control responsibilities in order to manage the firm.. In order to choose what approach is better to follow, one should define which tool is consistent with the users information needs in relation to its underlying theoretical framework.. Finally, in order to answer the question how and when to implement a chosen Intellectual Capital tool, one should consider, the main following factors:. -\tquality of information to be gathered; . -\tcost\/ benefits of information. The first related to the costs of gathering data (in terms of time absorbed, resources dedicated and financial costs), the latter related to the use stakeholders make of it.. This paper can be of interest to both scholars and professionals because it present the results of an empirical study into the critical success factors for implementing the development of intellectual capital statements in a high-technology company. .