Tuesday 4 April 2017

Mind mapping the topic of intellectual capital (IC)

Mind mapping the topic of  intellectual capital (IC)



Joseph Kim-keung Ho
Independent Trainer
Hong Kong, China


Abstract: The topic of intellectual capital (IC) is a main one in Strategic Management. This article makes use of the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach to render an image on the knowledge structure of intellectual capital. The finding of the review exercise is that its knowledge structure comprises four main themes, i.e., (a) Descriptions of basic concepts and information (b) Major underlying theories and thinking, (c) Main research topics and issues, and (d) Major trends and issues related to practices. There is also a set of key concepts identified from the intellectual capital literature review. The article offers some academic and pedagogical values on the topics of intellectual capital, literature review and the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach.
Key words: Intellectual capital, literature review, mind map, the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach



Introduction
Intellectual capital (IC) is a main topic in Strategic Management. It is of academic and pedagogical interest to the writer who has been a lecturer on Strategic Management for some tertiary education centres in Hong Kong. In this article, the writer presents his literature review findings on intellectual capital using the mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach. This approach was proposed by this writer in 2016 and has been employed to review the literature on a number of topics, such as supply chain management, strategic management accounting and customer relationship management (Ho, 2016). The MMBLR approach itself is not particularly novel since mind mapping has been employed in literature review since its inception. The overall aims of this exercise are to:
1.      Render an image of the knowledge structure of intellectual capital via the application of the MMBLR approach;
2.      Illustrate how the MMBLR approach can be applied in literature review on an academic topic, such as intellectual capital.
The findings from this literature review exercise offer academic and pedagogical values to those who are interested in the topics of intellectual capital, literature review and the MMBLR approach. Other than that, this exercise facilitates this writer’s intellectual learning on these three topics. The next section makes a brief introduction on the MMBLR approach. After that, an account of how it is applied to study intellectual capital is presented.

On the mind mapping-based literature review approach
The mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) approach was developed by this writer in 2016 (Ho, 2016). It makes use of mind mapping as a complementary literature review exercise (see the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page and the Literature on literature review Facebook page). The approach is made up of two steps. Step 1 is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic chosen for study. Step 2 makes use of the findings from step 1 to produce a complementary mind map. The MMBLR approach is a relatively straightforward and brief exercise. The approach is not particularly original since the idea of using mind maps in literature review has been well recognized in the mind mapping literature. It is also an interpretive exercise in the sense that different reviewers with different research interest and intellectual background inevitably will select different ideas, facts and findings in their thematic analysis (i.e., step 1 of the MMBLR approach). To perform the approach, the reviewer needs to perform a literature search beforehand. Apparently, what a reviewer gathers from a literature search depends on what library facility, including e-library, is available to the reviewer. The next section presents the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1; afterward, a companion mind map is provided based on the MMBLR approach step 1 findings.

Mind mapping-based literature review on intellectual capital (IC): step 1 findings
Step 1 of the MMBLR approach is a thematic analysis on the literature of the topic under investigation (Ho, 2016). In our case, this is the intellectual capital topic. The writer gathers some academic articles from some universities’ e-libraries as well as via the Google Scholar. With the academic articles collected, the writer conducted a literature review on them to assemble a set of ideas, viewpoints, concepts and findings (called points here). The points from the intellectual capital literature are then grouped into four themes here. The key words in the quotations are bolded in order to highlight the key concepts involved.

Theme 1: Descriptions of basic concepts and information
Point 1.1.              "Stewart ...  defines intellectual capital as "the intellectual material - knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience - that can be put to use to create wealth". ..... Generally, the literature has identified three sub-phenomena that constitute the concept of intellectual capital: human capital, relational capital and organizational capital" (de Pablos, 2002);
Point 1.2.              "IC is a multi-disciplinary concept and the understanding of it varies across different business-related disciplines. The concept was developed to deal with specific sets of issues and problems. According to Chatzkel (2002), all definitions are valid and it is up to the user to select the definition that works best to meet any particular sets of needs" (Huang, Luther and Tayles, 2007);
Point 1.3.              "The economist Galbraith [1969] was the first to propose the intellectual capital concept, and described intellectual capital as behavior that requires the exercise of the brain. Intellectual capital was not understood as static intellect, but rather as demanding dynamic intellect-creating activities" (Huang and Wu, 2010);
Point 1.4.              "...we define IC as the combination of knowledge-bearing intangible resources that the firm has at its disposal and whose effective management can provide the firm with a sustainable competitive advantage. The above definition of IC has several implications. First, intellectual capital consists of intangible resources that contain knowledge that can be used by the firm to accomplish its goals. Second, it is the combination of intangible resources instead of their absolute quantity that creates value for the firm. This combination determines the quality of the firm’s IC as discussed in Chaminade and Roberts .... Third, the firm doesn’t own or control all these resources" (Cohen and Kaimenakis, 2007);
Point 1.5.              "....human capital represent the individual knowledge  stock of an organization as represented by its employees.... It  is the accumulated value of investments  in employee training, competence and the future" (de Pablos, 2002);
Point 1.6.              "Organizational capital is defined as the knowledge that stays within the company at the end of the working day. According to Bontis et al...., it "includes all the non-human storehouses of knowledge in organizations, which include the databases, organizational charts, process manuals, strategies, routines and anything whose value to the company is higher than its material value".." (de Pablos, 2002);
Point 1.7.              "Relational capital represents the relationships within internal and external stakeholders.... It is the knowledge embedded  in organizational relationships with customers, suppliers, stakeholders, strategic alliance partners, etc." (de Pablos, 2002);
Theme 2: Major underlying theories and thinking
Point 2.1.              "At the macroeconomic level OECD research has identified a number of business intangibles such as R&D, education and training of work force that correlate positively with GDP or productivity growth" (Grasenick and Low, 2004);
Point 2.2.              "The concept of social capital was originally used in community studies to describe relational resources embedded in personal ties in the community ... The concept has since been applied to a wide range of intra- and inter-organizational studies ..... Researchers have positioned social capital as a key factor in understanding value creation ..... An organization’s social capital enhances the quality of group work and richness of information exchange among team members" (Huang and Wu, 2010);
Point 2.3.              "....if human capital resembles a root, absorbing all nutrition, then organizational capital is like a trunk, providing nutrient transit, and social capital is like the leaves, conveying environmental elements. These elements interact to create more than the sum of their parts" (Huang and Wu, 2010);
Point 2.4.              "...intermediate customers (such as travel agents and tour operators) are categorized as non-customers (and, thus, constitute so-called non-endcustomer-relationship capital), since they are not the final customers of the hotel product" (Rudež and Mihalič, 2007);
Point 2.5.              "...the organizational capital in an SME is primarily developed and maintained by the means of its employees. More specifically, they report the lack of explicit knowledge repositories since the manager/owner plays this part, while at the same time knowledge is created, shared, transferred and applied through the  organization’s members without the intervention of automated mechanisms usually found in larger firms" (Cohen and Kaimenakis, 2007);
Point 2.6.              "According to Chen and Lin ... “the value-added created by human capital has prevailed over that created by tangible assets, such as machines” ..... Drucker ... has argued that IC is the only meaningful resource, and not just another resource alongside with the traditional production factors. Others argue that the relative importance of tangible assets has decreased as the importance of intangible, knowledge-based assets has increased and hence take precedence over traditional physical resources in the pursuit of competitive advantage" (Steenkamp and Kashyap, 2010);
Point 2.7.              "Companies own both tangible assets such as property, plants, equipment and physical technologies and intangible assets which are needed to run the business. Tangible assets are easily imitable and substitutable and can be easily purchased and sold in the open market" (Kehelwalathenna, 2016);
Point 2.8.              "Gu and Lev .... name five different subgroups of intangibles, namely research and development, advertising, capital expenditure, information systems, and technology acquisition. According to these authors, the definition of an intangible asset as “a claim to future benefits that does not have a physical or financial (a stock or a bond) embodiment”....." (Kaufmann and Schneider, 2004);
Point 2.9.              "Human capital is of little value to the firm in isolation. Bearing in mind its volatile nature (employees can suddenly leave the organization), it is essential that firms develop competencies that sustain its existence beyond certain individuals. These competencies constitute the concept of organizational capital which assists employees to achieve high intellectual performance and consequently enhance the firm’s performance" (Cohen and Kaimenakis, 2007);
Point 2.10.         "IC can give rise to agency problems as “insiders” of firms can take advantage of such information to earn excess profits ..... Disclosure of IC in annual reports helps to make capital markets more efficient by reducing information asymmetry between “insiders” and investors. Additionally, IC disclosure helps the capital market to provide a more accurate market capitalization of firms" (Abeysekera, 2008);
Point 2.11.         "IC is viewed in this paper as a “human construction” ...; hence, it cannot be adequately understood independently of actors, cultures and history. It follows that IC does not first and foremost gain its legitimacy from any capacity to explain reality; nor is it solely the means for some neutral representation or measurement of reality. IC gains its legitimacy from its capacity to change social reality, to intervene in social reality, to allow “action to be performed at a distance” ..., and/or to assist actors in transforming their own realities" (Jørgensen, 2006);
Point 2.12.         "In the post-capitalist society, it is safe to assume that anyone with any knowledge will have to acquire new knowledge every four to five years, or else become obsolete" (Huang and Wu, 2010);
Point 2.13.         "Non-monetary-oriented concepts that measure and manage intangibles usually concentrate on intangible competencies, based on a firm’s strategy. Indicators are derived from identified key success factors. The most well-known representatives are the balanced scorecard ..., the intangible asset monitor ...., the intellectual capital approach .... and the IC-index ...., the performance prism ...., MERITUM guidelines ...., Danish guidelines ...." (Grasenick and Low, 2004);
Point 2.14.         "Relational capital represents the potential an organization has due to extraneous intangible assets. These intangibles comprise the knowledge embedded in customers, suppliers, the government, or related industry associations .... The relationships a firm establishes with its customers constitute the most important part of relational capital known as “customer capital”. This includes customer contracts, relationships, loyalty, satisfaction, market share, image, reputation, brands, distribution networks, and channels" (Cohen and Kaimenakis, 2007);
Point 2.15.         "Resource based theorists see firms as heterogeneous entities characterized by their unique resource base .... and this resource base consists increasingly of IC ....This means that the IC of a firm should be one of the central considerations in formulating strategy and one of the primary constants upon which a firm can establish its identity and frame its strategy, as well as one of the primary sources of the firm’s profitability" (Marr, Gray and Neely, 2003);
Point 2.16.         "Roos et al.....  state that the intellectual agility of employees’ acts in changing their practices lead to innovative solutions to problems in the organization" (Kehelwalathenna, 2016);
Point 2.17.         "The adjective “intangible” usually accompanies different concepts such as assets, investments, and resources. There is not a unique nor unanimously accepted definition or classification of intangibles. One reason for this is that the boundaries, constituents and definitions of intangibles vary according to the perspectives of the different interest groups considering them, for example whether evaluating the potential impact of accounting concepts on a firm or national level, or analysing them from a managerial point of view in order to extract value from key business investments and assets" (Grasenick and Low, 2004);
Point 2.18.         "The components of organizational capital include infrastructure, information systems, routines, procedures, and organizational culture for retaining, packaging, and moving knowledge .... The productivity of the knowledge worker will almost always require that the work itself be restructured and made part of a system" (Huang and Wu, 2010);
Point 2.19.         "The productive contributions of scientists also include their network contacts and resources, which are emphasized by the social network perspective. A firm’s scientists can embed the firm in scientific networks or “invisible colleges” .... These invisible colleges are an informal network of researchers established around a common problem or research program" (Luo, Koput and Powell, 2009);
Point 2.20.         "The recent literature, in general, delineates IC along three dimensions: (1) “internal (structural) capital”; (2) “external (relational/customer) capital”; and (3) “human capital” .... Internal capital includes intellectual properties, processes, organisational culture, etc. whereas external capital represents the relationship with various stakeholders ..... External capital is the knowledge embedded in organisational relationships with customers, suppliers, investors, and strategic alliance partners" (Abeysekera, 2008);
Point 2.21.         "Through the systematic literature review we were able to identify five main reasons [for measuring IC]. These were: (1) to help organizations formulate their strategy; (2) assess strategy execution; (3) assist in diversification and expansion decisions; (4) use these as a basis for compensation; and finally (5) to communicate measures to external stakeholders" (Marr, Gray and Neely, 2003);
Point 2.22.         "Where firms lack the critical resources (intangible and tangible), they often seek to access these from other organizations through a variety of inter-organizational links ... These include strategic alliances, joint ventures and mergers and acquisitions. Lev .... suggests that network economies and synergies associated with R&D and other intangibles are fundamental issues in corporate acquisitions, diversification and alliances. The takeover prices paid for targets in many of these deals, especially those in knowledge intensive industries, often include very large payments for goodwill and IC" (Marr, Gray and Neely, 2003);
Point 2.23.         "Knowledge assets are a type of intangible asset, which causes three unit qualities that physical assets lack. First, a physical asset is a scare because it can only be deployed in one place at a time (rival assets), knowledge assets can be deployed simultaneously in multiple locations and for multiple projects. ... A second significant difference between tangible and intangible assets, while physical assets experience diminishing returns at some point, knowledge assets can experience increasing returns. This increase is due to the cumulative nature of knowledge. Finally, there are also network effects associated with knowledge assets. Knowledge assets have an inherent feedback mechanism that leads to the self-propagating virtuous circle" (Seetharaman, Low and Saravanan, 2004);
Point 2.24.         "A defining characteristic of firms with a high proportion of intangible assets, also called “knowledge firms”, is their reliance on knowledge workers and the management of knowledge assets to add value in their products and relationships" (Seetharaman, Low and Saravanan, 2004);
Point 2.25.         "Companies that use their knowledge as a source of competitive  advantage are called knowledge  companies. Knowledge companies derive their profits from the commercialization of the knowledge created by their human resource - their employees" (Edvinsson and Sullivan, 1996);
Point 2.26.         "End-customer-relationship capital refers to the relations with end-customers only and non-end-customer-relationship capital is divided into two sub-categories: relationships with commercial partners in the private sector, and relationships with other partners such as the government, associations and nongovernmental organisations" (Rudež and Mihalič, 2007);
Point 2.27.         "IC is now part of neo-liberal capitalist discourse and appears to be mainly concerned with the control, management and exploitation of knowledge, learning processes, and human capital/employees" (Jørgensen, 2006);
Point 2.28.         "Knowledge companies... leverage newly defined kinds of capital: intellectual and structural. Both of  these new kinds of assets have as their basis the human resource, the most fundamental element to the firm's revenue-generating capability" (Edvinsson and Sullivan, 1996);
Point 2.29.         "Several characteristics define it [the knowledge economy]: * it is focused on intangible rather than tangible resources; * it has  a hypercompetitive business environment; * it  is digital; * it is virtual; and * it is networked" (de Pablos, 2002);
Point 2.30.         "The market value of a firm consists of its financial capital and "something else". The first term is the firm's book value and is formed  by organizational financial and physical assets. The "something else" term represents the firm's intellectual capital, defined as resources created from internal learning and development of valuable relationships" (de Pablos, 2002);
Point 2.31.         "This framework [by Brooking] has the following categories of IC: . market assets (consisting of service or product brands, backlog, customer loyalty, etc.); . intellectual property assets (patents, know-how, trade secrets, etc.); . human-centered assets (education, work-related knowledge, vocational qualifications, etc.); and . infrastructure assets (management philosophy, corporate culture, networking systems, etc.)...." (Addolmohammadi, 2005);
Point 2.32.         "Intangibles are characterized by a set of attributes. They tend to lack the classical bottleneck characteristics, they reach the expected economies of scale quickly, and often they show network effects ..... Additionally, they may be characterized by various occurrences within the group of intangibles, missing physical and/or financial/monetary attitudes, partial accountability, claims for future incomes, limited tradability, and a partially missing market" (Kaufmann and Schneider, 2004);
Theme 3: Main research topics and issues
Point 3.1.              "Bukh et al. .... state that no unique definition for intellectual capital exists; they claim, “it is a fragile construct, which has to be continuously supported and held together by a whole array of interrelated elements”..." (Kaufmann and Schneider, 2004);
Point 3.2.              "...little has been done in exploring IC in small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) since they differ significantly from the large firms that are usually surveyed on the basis of the constrained resources employed ...and management capabilities .... According to Greiner ..., firms of relatively small size follow a different model of organizational practices when compared to large corporations. That means that the importance attributed to each IC sub-domain may be  different, and subsequently, the impact of one sub-domain to the other is expected to differ compared to large firm findings" (Cohen and Kaimenakis, 2007);
Point 3.3.              "...the degree to which IC is used in various fields is evident, as most accounting, economics and strategic management literature recognizes IC with greater interest in recent times" (Kehelwalathenna, 2016);
Point 3.4.              "In the extant literature, different approaches about how IC may be classified and measured are available .... However, despite the number of activities from both academics and practitioners, one important hurdle was detected in the past: the lack of a common language ..... One explanation for this situation is certainly the divergent viewpoints of different interest groups or disciplines, or between considerations of strategy and measurement. The former is concerned with optimizing the management of knowledge resources in the company to improve performance, whereas the latter focusses on establishing standards for organizational accounting to provide stakeholders with a more comprehensive and comprehensible picture of IC expressed in terms of traditional monetary data" (Ferenhof, Durst, Bialecki and Selig, 2015);
Point 3.5.              "Pioneering IC models originated mainly from Scandinavia and North America. While the IC concept has “travelled” to Australia and some Asian countries, its taxonomy, which was initially developed in “the West”, may not be universally appropriate" (Huang, Luther and Tayles, 2007);
Point 3.6.              "Research on IC applied to SME managements’ perceptions as to which intangible assets are most important and contribute to their businesses’ success in particular is scarce" (Steenkamp and Kashyap, 2010);
Point 3.7.              "The extant IC literature contains a plethora of studies which investigate the impact of IC on firm performance. However, no attempt has been made to examine whether this impact is sustainable during a financially unstable situation in the economy" (Kehelwalathenna, 2016);
Point 3.8.              "There is a growing number of companies that have started to report their intangible assets or indicators for such in their annual reports .... The companies may however be hesitant to disclose important figures for fear of giving away their competitive advantage but a lack of external disclosure standards and the lack of clarity in intellectual capital (IC) constructs for disclosure can also hinder measurement and reporting. There is also the question of the perceived importance of different intangible resources across companies or industries, which should call for more detailed studies of what is disclosed of IC and for what reasons" (Claessen, 2005);
Point 3.9.              "There seems to be no clear evolutionary path of intangible asset management as a discipline. Measurement instruments have been developed during the last decade with the purpose of reporting the contribution of human competencies, knowledge and skills to a firm’s value and to foster their further expansion. Correlations between intangibles and other drivers of value show clear empirical evidence of their importance; it has been shown, however, that their interaction cannot be explained easily within a consistent theoretical framework" (Grasenick and Low, 2004);
Point 3.10.         "While there is no direct evidence in the literature regarding the effects of disclosure of IC components on market capitalization, studies in other contexts provide evidence of a significant effect of voluntary disclosure on trading volume and market capitalization" (Addolmohammadi, 2005);
Point 3.11.         "Research into the general topic of IC began in the 1990s and was mainly concerned with raising awareness about the existence and value of intangible assets within organizations and about developing classification models for IC .... Following this initial work, the strategy and economics field began to carry out research into intellectual assets and formulated the concept of the knowledge-based organization" (Marr, Gray and Neely, 2003);
Point 3.12.         "The most common way of viewing value creation during the past two centuries has been influenced by the industrial logic, in which value is added in sequential process stages based on the notion that each part can be optimized individually and thereby contribute to the overall organizational value creation ..... In the past two decades this value creation framework has been challenged by non-linear models of interpreting the creation and management of values in organizations ..... These new perspectives clearly acknowledge different actors (stakeholders) as co-producers/creators of organizational value and they tend to stress the importance of co-invention, combinations and constant connectivity among the various actors in question" (Skoog, 2003);
Theme 4: Major trends and issues related to practices
Point 4.1.              "According to the OECD (2008), other benefits which IC contributes to firms include among others improving customer acquisition and retention, enhancing employee motivation, recruitment, and retention, increasing firms’ competitiveness, enhancing efficiency of resource allocation and better project management" (Steenkamp and Kashyap, 2010);
Point 4.2.              "Both human capital and social capital can signal a firm’s quality in the biotechnology industry. Higgins and Gulati ... argue that young firms send messages of their legitimacy to their investors through the prior employment affiliation and role experience of their top management teams. Top management teams’ affiliation with prominent downstream organizations (such as pharmaceutical companies) and prior experience as a chief scientific officer favorably affect investment" (Luo, Koput and Powell, 2009);
Point 4.3.              "Experience from the pioneers of reporting on IC ... indicate that information on IC has little value for users unless it is linked to the strategy of the firm. Any performance measurement system should be used to assess and challenge the assumptions underpinning the current strategic direction" (Marr, Gray and Neely, 2003);
Point 4.4.              "In the New Zealand (NZ) accounting standard, an intangible asset is defined as: “An identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance” (New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants, n.d.). However, in the intellectual capital (IC) literature, intangible assets are defined as: “claims to future benefits that do not have physical or financial embodiments” and “non-physical sources of value generated by innovation, unique organizational designs, brands, and human resources” .... These definitions indicate that “intangibles” has a broader meaning in the IC literature than in prevailing accounting standards" (Steenkamp and Kashyap, 2010);
Point 4.5.              "The increasing importance of the knowledge economy has aroused a considerable discussion among scholars concerning the definition, role, management and disclosure  of the Intellectual capital (IC) ...... The importance initially given to identifying and disclosing IC in the private sector ..... has led to an osmosis in the non-profit and public sectors" (Rossi, Citro and Bisogno, 2016);
Point 4.6.              "The International Accounting Standards – IAS 38 has acknowledged the difficulty in quantitatively verifying IC processes for financial reporting purposes (IAS 38), which is the accounting standard of intangible assets, as a reason for not classifying IC as assets in financial reports. As Catasus ...  points out, the IAS 38 revisited traditional accounting classification-related concepts such as identifiability, control and future economic benefit. However, the effect of the use of traditional accounting standards to produce a classification model whose financial statements provide limited information about the affairs of firms, and the prudent approach adopted by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has increased the “unexplained” gap between the fair price and the reported value (net book value) of the firm" (Abeysekera, 2008);
Point 4.7.              "Under the generally accepted accounting principle (GAAP), financial statements lack proper reporting, measurement and disclosure of items in newly emerging fields such as human capital ..... For example, conservatism states that when exposure to uncertainty and risk is significant, accounting measurement and disclosure should take a cautious and prudent stance – by using ways that do not overstate assets and net income. Only about one-third to one-sixth of the market valuation of firms in the USA is explained by GAAP" (Chen and Lin, 2004);


Each of the four themes has a set of associated points (i.e., idea, viewpoints, concepts and findings). Together they provide an organized way to comprehend the knowledge structure of the intellectual capital topic. The bolded key words in the quotation reveal, based on the writer’s intellectual judgement, the key concepts examined in the intellectual capital literature. The referencing indicated on the points identified informs the readers where to find the academic articles to learn more about the details on these points. Readers are also referred to the Literature on management accounting Facebook page for additional information on this topic. The process of conducting the thematic analysis is an exploratory as well as synthetic learning endeavour on the topic’s literature. Once the structure of the themes, sub-themes[1] and their associated points are finalized, the reviewer is in a position to move forward to step 2 of the MMBLR approach. The MMBLR approach step 2 finding, i.e., a companion mind map on intellectual capital, is presented in the next section.

Mind mapping-based literature review on intellectual capital (IC): step 2 (mind mapping) output
By adopting the findings from the MMBLR approach step 1 on intellectual capital, the writer constructs a companion mind map shown as Figure 1.




Referring to the mind map on intellectual capital, the topic label is shown right at the centre of the map as a large blob. Four main branches are attached to it, corresponding to the four themes identified in the thematic analysis. The links and ending nodes with key phrases represent the points from the thematic analysis. The key phrases have also been bolded in the quotations provided in the thematic analysis. As a whole, the mind map renders an image of the knowledge structure on intellectual capital based on the thematic analysis findings. Constructing the mind map is part of the learning process on literature review. The mind mapping process is speedy and entertaining. The resultant mind map also serves as a useful presentation and teaching material. This mind mapping exercise confirms the writer’s previous experience on using the MMBLR approach (Ho, 2016). Readers are also referred to the Literature on literature review Facebook page and the Literature on mind mapping Facebook page for additional information on these two topics.

Concluding remarks
The MMBLR approach to study intellectual capital provided here is mainly for its practice illustration as its procedures have been refined via a number of its employment on an array of topics (Ho, 2016). No major additional MMBLR steps nor notions have been introduced in this article. In this respect, the exercise reported here primarily offers some pedagogical value as well as some systematic and stimulated learning on intellectual capital in the field of Strategic Management. Nevertheless, the thematic findings and the image of the knowledge structure on intellectual capital in the form of a mind map should also be of academic value to those who research on intellectual capital.




Bibliography
1.      Abeysekera, I. 2008. "Intellectual capital disclosure trends: Singapore and Sri Lanka" Journal of Intellectual Capital 9(4), Emerald: 723-737.
2.      Addolmohammadi, M.J. 2005. "Intellectual capital disclosure and market capitalization" Journal of Intellectual Capital 6(3), Emerald: 397-416.
3.      Chen, H.M. and K.J. Lin. 2004. "The role of human capital cost in accounting" Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(1), Emerald: 116-130.
4.      Claessen, E. 2005. "Strategic use of IC reporting in small and medium-sized IT companies" Journal of Intellectual Capital 6(4) Emerald: 558-569.
5.      Cohen, S. and N. Kaimenakis. 2007. "Intellectual capital and corporate performance n knowledge-intensive SMEs" The Learning Organization 14(3), Emerald: 241-262.
6.      de Pablos, P.O. 2002. "Evidence of intellectual capital measurement from Asia, Europe and the Middle East" Journal of Intellectual Capital 3(3), Emerald: 287-302.
7.      Edvinsson, L. and P. Sullivan. 1996. "Developing a Model for Managing Intellectual Capital" European Management Journal 14(4), August, Elsevier: 356-364.
8.      Ferenhof, H.A., S. Durst, M.Z. Bialecki and P.M. Selig. 2015. "Intellectual capital dimensions: state of the art in 2014" Journal of Intellectual Capital 16(1), Emerald: 58-100.
9.      Grasenick, K. and J. Low. 2004. "Shaken, not stirred: Defining and connecting indicators for the measurement and validation of intangibles" Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(2), Emerald: 268-281.
10. Ho, J.K.K. 2016. Mind mapping for literature review – a ebook, Joseph KK Ho publication folder October 7 (url address: http://josephkkho.blogspot.hk/2016/10/mind-mapping-for-literature-review-ebook.html).
11. Huang, C.C., P. Luther and M. Tayles. 2007. "An evidence-based taxonomy of intellectual capital" Journal of Intellectual Capital 8(3), Emerald: 386-408.
12. Huang, Y.C. and Y.C.J. Wu. 2010. "Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: The Taiwan biotech industry" Management Decision 448(4), Emerald: 580-599.
13. Jørgensen, K.M. 2006. "Conceptualising intellectual capital as language game and power" Journal of Intellectual Capital 7(1), Emerald: 78-92.
14. Kaufmann, L. and Y. Schneider. 2004. "Intangibles: A synthesis of current  research" Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(3), Emerald: 366-388.
15. Kehelwalathenna, S. 2016. "Intellectual capital  performance during financial crises" Measuring Business Excellence 20(3), Elsevier: 55-78.
16. Literature on intellectual capital Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/Literature-on-intellectual-capital-271188326661229/).
17. Literature on literature review Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.literaturereview/).
18. Literature on mind mapping Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/literature.mind.mapping/).
19. Luo, X.R., K.W. Koput and W.W. Powell. 2009. "Intellectual capital or signal? The effects of scientists on alliance formation in knowledge-intensive industries" Research Policy 38, Elsevier: 1313-1325.
20. Marr, B., D. Gray and A. Neely. 2003. "Why do firms measure their intellectual capital?" Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(4), Emerald: 441-464.
21. Rossi, F.M., F. Citro and M. Bisogno. 2016. "Intellectual capital in action: evidence from Italian local governments" Journal of Intellectual Capital 17(4), Emerald: 696-713.
22. Rudež, H.N. and T. Mihalič. 2007. "Intellectual capital in the hotel  industry: A case study from Slovenia" Hospitality Management 26, Elsevier: 188-199.
23. Seetharaman, A., K.L.T. Low and A.S. Saravanan. 2004. "Comparative justification on intellectual capital" Journal of Intellectual Capital 5(4), Emerald: 522-539.
24. Skoog, M. 2003. "Visualizing value creation through the management control of intangibles" Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(4), Emerald: 487-504.
25. Steenkamp, N. and V. Kashyap. 2010. "Importance and contribution of intangible assets: SME managers' perceptions" Journal of Intellectual Capital 11(3), Emerald: 368-390.



[1]There is no sub-theme generated in this analysis on intellectual capital.

1 comment:

  1. Pdf version at: https://www.academia.edu/32251848/Mind_mapping_the_topic_of_intellectual_capital_IC_

    ReplyDelete