Journal of Intellectual Capital

Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research: a critical case study in university
settings
Giustina Secundo, Maurizio Massaro, John Dumay, Carlo Bagnoli,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Giustina Secundo, Maurizio Massaro, John Dumay, Carlo Bagnoli, "Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC
research: a critical case study in university settings", Journal of Intellectual Capital, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0113
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0113
Downloaded on: 25 November 2017, At: 06:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:387340 []
For Authors
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Intellectual Capital Management in the fourth stage of IC
research: a critical case study in University settings

1. Introduction
This paper presents a critical case study to analyse how universities can strategically manage
Intellectual Capital (IC) to capture the distinctive role of all its stakeholders. Specifically, we
investigate how engaging stakeholders creates value in a university by analysing how IC
management helps one of Europe’s oldest business schools, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy),
to achieve academia’s ‘third mission’. The third mission considers universities to be a key factor in
economic and social development (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006), in addition to their first mission, to
teach, and their second mission, to research (Laredo, 2007). This evolving mission requires
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

universities to shift from an administrative focus to a strategic one. To date, university management
has been built around a culture of collegium and bureaucracy (McNay, 1995, pp. 105–108), but a
‘new wave’ of management thinking in the private sector is now permeating the public one
(Brereton and Temple, 1999, pp. 459).

Similarly, IC is also evolving beyond the first and second stage of research devoted to evaluating IC’s
influence on financial performance, into its third stage (Dumay, 2013; Dumay and Garanina, 2013)
and fourth stages of research (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). Third stage research examines how IC
can be used as a management technology in practice (Guthrie et al., 2012), and highlights that
identifying and measuring intangible assets is important for increasing the impact of IC (Dumay and
Garanina, 2013). Moreover, the third stage considers value is not just monetary (Dumay, 2009a, p.
195). In this case, all evaluation methods of IC become just tools for managers of companies who are
more concerned with real implications of IC management for value creation than just pure IC
measurement. Further, the rise of the knowledge economy and increased networking in society
(Edvinsson, 2013) has created the fourth stage of IC research (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). This
stage explores how IC can be used to manage external environments, especially stakeholders
(Secundo et al., 2016). Incorporating external stakeholders is important for developing strategic
plans that combine performance measures with governance and accountability, and is instrumental
in transforming public universities into more enterprise-like institutions.

An ancillary aim of this study is to respond to Mouritsen and Roslender’s (2009, p. 802) call for IC
research “from a more thoroughly critical perspective”. We adopt this perspective to investigate
how IC drives strategic management and value creation within a university. We use Secundo et al.’s
(2016) framework to identify and analyse how stakeholder engagement allows Ca’ Foscari University
to strategically manage and measure IC in practice so contributing to social and economic
development. Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000, pp. 19-20) critical management tasks – insight, critique
and transformative redefinition (change) – are used to frame and discuss the results.

Findings critically examine IC in practice in a university through the involvement of the internal and
external stakeholders to create value. Here, the concept of value goes beyond monetary wealth, to
include utility, social capital and sustainability (Dumay, 2016). The most value created in universities
is intangible because most universities are not motivated by profit (Dumay and Guthrie, 2012).
However, Ca’ Foscari University’s third mission considers generating value for the wider economic

1
 and social development of society. Our critical insights demonstrate that, to achieve such goals, the
frameworks used to manage and measure IC in universities needs to change and the current one-
size-fits-all approach to IC is unsatisfactory.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: Sections 2 and 3 examine relevant literature.
Section 4 presents the research methodology. Sections 5 and 6 presents insights and critiques we
derive from the findings. Lastly, Section 7 emphasises the need for transformative redefinitions of a
decade of IC research in universities and concludes the paper.

2. Literature review
This section explains the third stage of IC research, then provides the rationale behind IC
management for value creation through stakeholder engagement in a university setting.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

2.1 The third and fourth stage of IC Research

The study of IC is important because “IC as an innovative management technology is topical in the
academic literature and practice” and “over the years, IC research has progressively changed its
focus” (Chiucchi and Dumay, 2015, p. 306). Accordingly, because of IC’s changing focus, we adopt
Dumay’s (2016, p.16) revised IC definition, being “… the sum of everything everybody in a company
knows that gives it a competitive edge … Intellectual Capital is intellectual material, knowledge,
experience, intellectual property, information… that can be put to use to create value”. Dumay
(2016) replaces the word ‘wealth’ in Stewart’s (1997, p. x) original definition, with the word ‘value’
to incorporate utility, social and environmental concerns. The most value created in universities is
intangible because profit is not their primary objective (Dumay and Guthrie, 2012), and thus
Dumay’s definition is more suited to public organisations such as universities.

The third stage of IC research focuses on how organisations understand, adapt and apply IC as a
management technology (Guthrie et al., 2012), i.e., how IC works inside organisations or IC
management through praxis (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). Its central premise is to provide a better
view of IC’s impact, rather than just producing IC measures (Guthrie et al., 2012). Dumay and Rooney
(2011, p. 344) find that, “it is possible to effectively implement IC practices without necessarily
needing concrete IC measures because organisational measurement needs to continually evolve”.

Dumay and Rooney’s (2011) findings are consistent with Mouritsen and Roslender (2009, p. 802)
who posit “if the Intellectual Capital concept is as central as some claim it to be, it is vital that it is
fully understood and exploited in the quest for social betterment”. To this end, a fourth stage of IC
research is emerging that extends IC’s boundaries into wider ecosystems like countries, cities, and
communities as opposed to specific firms (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). It seeks to understand IC’s
impact on society and environment (Dumay, 2016), and create bridges between knowledge inside
organisations – human and structural capital – and knowledge outside organisations – relational
capital (Borin and Donato, 2015).

2.2 Measuring and managing IC to create value for universities

Moving from the IC ‘practice turn’ of the IC third stage of research (Guthrie and Dumay, 2015),
evolving IC approaches in the fourth stage require balancing stakeholder needs within a wider

2
 ecosystem. We argue that fourth stage IC is a valid management tool for universities (Secundo et al.,
2010; Secundo et al., 2015) because the way universities are being evaluated by society is also
changing (Paloma Sánchez, and Elena, 2006; Paloma Sánchez et al., 2009). Universities were once
focussed on teaching and research. Today, universities need to contribute to a third mission:
developing society and economies (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006; Laredo, 2007).

The ‘third mission’ is defined as any activity, not included in teaching and research, “that universities
perform in relation to ‘external environments’” (E3M, 2010, p. 15). This inherently requires
universities to engage in an ecosystem where they create and develop IC on a wider scale (Borin and
Donato, 2015). However, developing IC through avenues other than teaching and research is
challenging (Jongbloed et al., 2008) and requires the stakeholders’ engagement. In support,
Bramwell and Wolfe (2005) conclude that universities can have a wide impact on economic and
social development beyond research, but to be effective the intangible assets of the university must
be aligned with multiple stakeholder needs. For universities, this means creating value from
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

collaborative endeavours, where internal stakeholders such as alumni, faculty, administration and
university staff, and external stakeholders such as industry, government, local communities and
citizens bring together their assets, competences, and specificities.

To address the third mission, these collaborative endeavours must have socio-economic value. As
Castellanos and Rodriguez, (2004, pp. 479-480) argue, “In such organisations, the value of IC should
be measured in terms of its direct or indirect social value” rather than monetary value. Here, value is
closer to social value (Nahapiet and Ghosal, 1998). This is in line with Dumay’s (2016, p. 170)
definition of social value being “the benefits an organisation provides to society”, which is important
because many are “so large that they affect the everyday lives of the society in which they operate.”
Expanding value beyond wealth to include the impact on society aligns with Dumay and Garanina’s
(2013, p. 21) fourth stage of IC research.
The tripartite classification of IC as human, structural and relational capital is widely recognised
(Guthrie et al., 2006). However, IC is only useful if the capitals are connected (Vagnoni and Oppi,
2015) and intrinsically related (Habersam et al., 2013). Therefore, IC for a university attempting to
accomplish the third mission is, ultimately, a set of capitals that drive value creation according to
goals influenced by stakeholders (Redford and Fayolle, 2014). Here, the interplay between academia
and external stakeholders such as other universities and research institutions; investors; businesses;
governments is of paramount importance to generating value.
We argue that identifying, measuring and managing IC can help evaluate how well a university is
performing against its strategic goals (Secundo et al., 2010). After all, IC can represent at the same
time the goal and the performance of the university (Secundo et al., 2010). First, IC development is a
main goal for such institutions as they are created and funded with the purpose to build the human
capital of the future, stimulate organisational and technological innovation. Second, IC is a metric of
performance and a report focusing on IC outcomes is for universities and research organisations
what the balance sheet and the income statement are to profit seeking companies.

Thus, the key questions this paper aims to address are:

RQ 1: How can IC be strategically managed within universities to capture the distinctive role of all
stakeholders to achieve academia’s third mission?

3
 RQ 2: How can IC management support universities in creating social value within the wider
ecosystems in which they operate?

3. Research framework
This section presents a framework for IC management in universities to answer the research
questions. Secundo et al. (2016) outline a collective intelligence system aimed at supporting IC
management in universities that coordinates tangible and intangible assets toward achieving
academia’s third mission through social engagement and regional development. This framework was
chosen because, for universities, achieving the third mission is ambitious and not just the
responsibility of a few internal stakeholders (Secundo et al., 2016). By engaging external
stakeholders, a university demonstrates its relevance to society (Redford and Fayolle, 2014), and
thus society has come to expect universities to develop a wide range of relationships to innovate
regional systems (Miller et al., 2014). Consequently, more stakeholders are becoming involved in
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

academic entrepreneurship including students, a younger generation of faculty and fellows,

technology managers, incubators/accelerators, and science/research/technology parks (Siegel and
Wright, 2015).

The underlying theory in Secundo et al.’s (2016) framework is the bidirectional relationship between
human and relational capital. Connections between universities and businesses are created by
human capital, while impact for stakeholders and value for universities is created by relational
capital. Structural capital creates environments conducive for achieving third mission goals (Secundo
and Elia, 2014). The framework highlights IC management in universities as a collective intelligence
genoma (Malone et al., 2008) through the key questions of what, who, how, and why (Secundo et
al., 2016):

• ‘What’ outlines the goals of a university. It includes all three missions – teaching, research, social
and regional development.

• ‘Who’ represents the human capital in universities that collectively contributes to the third
mission. It includes internal stakeholders (boards; administrative and technical staff; researchers,
teachers and students; etc.) and external stakeholders (other universities and research institutions;
investors; businesses; governments; etc.).

• ‘Why?’ includes the vision of a university. It outlines the aims and motivations behind IC
management that are relevant to academia’s third mission:

- Developing entrepreneurial competence in human capital for innovation and

development.
- Technology transfer and innovation linked to the concept of capacity for action and
achievement of development.
- Social engagement and regional development that promotes knowledge exchange and
fosters entrepreneurial skills to create social value.

• ‘How?’ includes a set of processes and actions to achieve all three missions (E3M, 2010). Teaching
is developed by attracting talent, using human resources efficiently, and providing continuing
education. Research is developed through innovation and knowledge diffusion, enhancing
infrastructure, and capitalising on intellectual property and licencing arrangements. Social and

4
 regional development requires improving R&D networks, internationalisation, and programs that
foster social engagement and community involvement. To each process, a set of indicators
corresponds to measure IC value accordingly.

Stakeholder interests are typically diverse and complex. Hence, this framework supports universities
to achieve their third mission by coordinating IC within a collective intelligence system. Collective
intelligence leverages collaborations to create more favourable conditions for managing IC when
both internal and external stakeholders are involved.

4. Research methodology
Selecting a research methodology is a critical step in a research project (Yin, 2014). In answering RQ1
and RQ2, we use Secundo et al.’s (2016) framework for analysing a case study to investigate how
stakeholders’ engagement can be used to create value for IC management in universities focused on
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

the third mission. According to Yin (2014, l. 913) case studies are a particularly useful research
methodology when “a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over
which the investigator has little or no control”. Therefore, considering the research questions, this
paper employs a case study focusing on the case of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy).

In this study, the researchers first develop a research protocol (Yin, 2014). As Yin states (2014, l.
1699), “without such documentation you could not even repeat your work – which is another way of
dealing with reliability”. Additionally, Yin (2014, l. 649) asserts that a case study should be conducted
rigorously using multiple sources of data. As such, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
12 members of Ca’ Foscari’s Board: the rector, five vice chancellors, four faculty’s deans, the
president of the department’s heads council and the general director (see the Appendix for the
interviews’ codes). According to Qu and Dumay (2011, p. 246), “the semi-structured interview
involves prepared questioning guided by identified themes in a consistent and systematic manner
interposed with probes designed to elicit more elaborate responses”. The questions focus on the
university’s vision, mission, strategic objectives and their impacts on internal and external
stakeholders, and on IC. After the interviews, 12 strategic maps of the concepts expressed by each
interviewee were developed (see the Appendix for the strategic maps’ codes). Additionally, the 2012
Ca’ Foscari University strategic plan (Towards Ca’ Foscari 2018) was reviewed to extract the main
processes, strategic objectives, and actions for achieving the University’s vision and mission.

To ensure validity, all data was collated in NVivo using open in-vivo coding (Miles et al., 2013, l.
2340).i The coding was then discussed among the authors to achieve investigator triangulation (Yin,
2014, l. 3180), and the results were discussed with the 12 interviewees (Yin, 2014, l. 1657). To
triangulate the data (Yin, 2014, l. 1614), the interview data were correlated with strategic maps
developed during the strategic planning process and with the final plan. Tables II–VII report the
results of triangulation, and provide a chain of evidence (Yin, 2014). Additionally, one of the authors
of this study was involved in the strategic planning process, giving us extended time in the field
(Shah and Corley, 2006). Pattern matching and the chain of evidence ensure the reliability of our
results (Yin, 2014, l. 1614).

In preparing a case study, Eisenhardt (1989, p. 537 ) asserts that subjects that are ‘polar types’, in
which the process of interest is “transparently observable”, must be chosen and that “random
selection is neither necessary nor even preferable”. Ca’ Foscari was selected because it “can

5
 represent the critical test of a significant theory” (Yin, 2014, l. 1752) and, therefore fits the definition
of a polar type by assuring transferability of the findings (Shah and Corley, 2006).

To frame our results we use Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000) three tasks of critical management research
– insight, critique and transformative redefinition. Alvesson and Deetz (2000, p. 141) write, “Insight
is closely related to... interpretation. An interpretation aims to read something into what is
ambiguous. Gaining insight represents the ‘what’ of knowledge production”. Critique questions the
dominant messages, structures and power relationships. Alvesson and Deetz (2000, pp. 148-9)
explain that developing critical insight is the art of interpretation, so new meanings and unexpected
light is shed on the subject. Transformative redefinition is the natural extension to insight and
critique. Once insight is gained, and the phenomenon has been critiqued, the next task is to use that
new knowledge to redefine what we know about the phenomenon and how to use it in real life
(Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). Therefore, the three steps proposed by Alvesson and Deetz (2000) are
used to get insights, and to develop critique and transformative redefinitions about each element of
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

the Secundo et al. (2016) framework, as described in Figure 1. The next sections will frame the
results accordingly.

Please Figure 1 here

5. Insights: The Ca’ Foscari University case study

All collected material was analysed using Secundo et al.’s (2016) framework. Figure 2 shows how the
framework has been applied to Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. This section provides insights on
each element of the framework.

Please Figure 2 here

5.1 The what element. The third mission of Ca’ Foscari University.
The research setting of this paper is Ca' Foscari University of Venice (Italy) – Italy’s first business
school and the second in Europe. Ca’ Foscari University is interesting and unique because, according
to its strategic plan, the University is adaptable and responsive to the ever-changing economic
environment. Thus, Ca’ Foscari University offers some uncommon characteristics for study: an old
university created in1868 that would like to play a new role in the society also challenging and
extending existing theories on value creation and performance measurement according to
Eisenhardt and Graebner's (2007, p. 29) definition.

Ca’ Foscari University is located in Veneto in northern Italy, a region dominated by small and
medium-sized enterprises. According to Ca’ Foscari University’s strategic plan, these firms should be
the first beneficiary of the University’s third mission actions. To meet this goal, Ca’ Foscari’s
University Board decided to set up a new strategic vision for the University. The plan aims for Ca'
Foscari to be a key player in the economic, political, cultural, social environment of the entire Veneto
region system, and to share ideas between key internal and external stakeholders to achieve this
goal. Thus, Ca’ Foscari University represents a critical case (Yin, 2014, l. 1724) that could help
challenge and extend existing theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007, p. 29) consistent with the
fourth stage of IC research.

6
 5.2 The who element. The stakeholders engaged in Ca’ Foscari University.
According to Secundo et al. (2016), the who element represents the actors that collectively
contribute to the mission of an organisation, in this case, the university. Massaro et al. (2015, p. 530)
state that the “public sector is organisationally specific, has different effectiveness concerns and has
different levels of representativeness, accountability, and responsiveness”. Therefore, public
universities, like Ca’ Foscari University, represent a specific context of research and their links with
external stakeholders are an important topic when seeking to understand the university’s impact on
society.

Developing Ca’ Foscari University’s strategic plan involved both internal and external stakeholders,
as shown in Table I, thus satisfying the framework criteria of IC stakeholder engagement in
universities.

Please Insert Table I here

Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

5.3 The why element. The vision of Ca’ Foscari University

The why element explains the motivations behind achieving the University’s vision (Secundo et al.,
2016). Universities are facing fundamental pressures, such as decreased funding and changing
legislation, that are forcing them to become more entrepreneurial (Philpott et al., 2011, p. 164).
Beckman and Cherwitz (2009, p. 27) define academic entrepreneurship as an intellectual enterprise
that cooperates with local communities to create new values or ideas. Interestingly, Siegel and
Wright (2015, p. 582) claim that “evidence regarding the effectiveness of the university sector … in
promoting academic entrepreneurship is patchy at best”. The strategic plan of Ca’ Foscari University
states:

Ca’ Foscari needs to become a university able to collaborate with all the stakeholders in an
academic experience, cultural and professional without comparison, that mixes research and
teaching to contribute to the innovation and the development of the country to be
recognised as one of the best in Europe [Source: Ca’ Foscari University Strategic Plan, p. 8]
Therefore, Ca’ Foscari University is arguably an entrepreneurial university that meets the framework
criteria (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007, p. 29).

5.4 The how element. IC processes and indicators at Ca’ Foscari University.
The how element describes the main strategic objectives of universities and “includes a number of
processes … that are associated with indices for measuring IC” (Secundo et al., 2016, p. 309). In Ca’
Foscari’s University case, the strategic plan identifies three main strategic objectives - corresponding
to the processes of the Secundo et al. (2016) framework - specifically referred to the third mission of
the University. For each strategic objective (process), the supporting strategies, specific actions and
measurements are outlined in the following sections.

5.4.1 Process 1: Improving the visibility of Ca’ Foscari at the local, national and international
level
This process focuses on how to improve Ca’ Foscari’s visibility at a local, national and international
level. This objective aims to change the external impact of the University through three main
strategies. One or more measurements is allocated to each strategy. The next sections will describe
each strategy.

7
 Strategy 1: Launching projects and events to promote the “ Ca‘ Foscari Brand”
The first strategy promotes Ca’ Foscari’s brand through a series of projects and events that celebrate
their 150th anniversary. These projects strengthen the University’s interdisciplinary approach,
engender a sense of belonging to the Ca’ Foscari’s community, and uphold its relationship with the
region. Specific activities include theatrical and musical events involving stakeholders such as alumni
and local institutions.

Individual resources are identified and measured for each category of activity. Interestingly, the
selected performance indicators are strongly connected to IC. For example, one category is alumni
measured with N° of enrolled Alumni / Total graduates of the year. Another measures the ‘crowd’ of
external stakeholders (Malone et al., 2010). Table II reports the chain of evidence.

Please Insert Table II here

Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Strategy 2: Increasing partnerships and mobility with international universities

The second strategy aims to increase the number of partnerships and student mobility through
double and joint degrees and agreements with international universities. Specific IC indicators are
measured for each activity. Interestingly, emergent categories of university stakeholders, such as
visiting students, are involved in the strategic management of these activities (Gibb and Haskin,
2014).

These results align with Riege and Lindsay’s findings (2006, p. 27) that recognise how partnerships
can potentially provide “a cost-effective way of obtaining good or better quality knowledge in an
increasingly resource-constrained environment”. Therefore, an ecosystem approach to relational
capital can support the cost-effective acquisition of knowledge to increase the University’s internal
human capital through partnerships that attract new students and researchers. In the same way,
alumni increase the University’s external human capital and allow sharing of knowledge. Through
this strategy, internal and external human capital interact to increase knowledge acquisition and
reduce cultural barriers among universities and other stakeholders. Table III reports the chain of
evidence.

Please Insert Table III here

Strategy 3: Increasing the visibility of research

The third strategy increases the visibility of research toward the social and economic development
of the region. The measurements used are strongly focused on the number of joint titles offered,
and the number of students that enroll in partnership programs. However, the nature of relevant
data needed to track third mission activities is considered to be invisible, tacit, unquantifiable,
informal, and, in most cases, not collected by administrators. As Molas-Gallart and Castro-Martínez
(2007) conclude, third mission indicators are subject to constant debate and redefinition (E3M,
2010).

These results build on those of Sánchez et al. (2009, p. 320) who state that universities “should
provide a true and fair view of their goals and their IC resources and activities so that their impact on
society could be assessed”. The chosen performance measures align with awareness of a holistic
ecosystem that considers both closed, organisational IC and IC within a broader context that

8
 encompasses the ‘crowd’ and the ‘collective’ (Edvinsson and Lin, 2012). Table IV reports the chain of
evidence.

Please Insert Table IV here

5.4.2 Process 2: Integrating Ca’ Foscari with other research institutes

This process aims to integrate Ca’ Foscari with other institutes in Venice to increase their impact in
the wider community. It comprises two main strategies detailed in the next sections.

Strategy 1: Promoting local cooperation with other universities

The first proposes integrating Ca’ Foscari with five other universities in the Venice area to create a
Venetian University Centre. Although this principally speaks to the first and second missions of the
University – teaching and research – it also increases their impact in the region in line with their
third mission (Laredo, 2007) by attracting students with better skills and abilities as indicated in the
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

strategic plan.

Cooperating with other higher education institutes envisions a new archetype for universities: a
“stakeholder university” (Romano, 2009), which promotes learning and capability building among
globally distributed and integrated networks of heterogeneous stakeholders (Margherita and
Secundo, 2011). More specifically, this concept highlights the value of IC in networks and the need to
go beyond the traditional boundaries of relational capital to study the knowledge flow between
stakeholders in depth (Edvinsson and Lin, 2012). The chain of evidence is provided in Table V.

Please Insert Table V here

Strategy 2: Experimenting in higher education projects

The second strategy focuses on experimental learning projects: hosting virtual collaborations among
the triple-helix stakeholders, i.e., university, industry and government (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff,
2000). This provides an active service to society and supports Ca’ Foscari’s aim to become an
entrepreneurial university by becoming a natural incubator for students and researchers to initiate
new ventures (Redford and Fayolle, 2014). Their plan outlines the development of a hub of learning
networks that bring major benefits such as strong integration of education with research and project
activities and virtual private-public partnerships with different stakeholders (Margherita and
Secundo, 2011). Thus, their strategic plan forces the University to become a stakeholder university
(Romano, 2009).

To reach the desired target, Ca’ Foscari identifies several IC measures focusing on human capital.
The most important contribution that universities make to a start-up community is through its
students, who bring new ideas that increase the intellectual capacity of the community (Feld, 2012).
Moreover, shared human capital is an important source of innovation and strategic renewal (Bontis,
2001). Table VI provides the chain of evidence.

Please Insert Table VI here

5.4.3 Process 3: Enhancing a better integration within the local geographical area
The third process develops a way to integrate Ca’ Foscari into their region by promoting and
enhancing the Ca’ Foscari Foundation. The strategy implemented involves external stakeholders to

9
 better understand the needs of region, which include information, training and consulting. Table VII
shows the chain of evidence.

Please Insert Table VII here

The selected IC measures are mostly financial indicators, even though they clearly evaluate
structural and relational capital. Some indicators, such as the number of internships, provide an
incentive to increase students and researcher engagement with non-academic stakeholders (Molas-
Gallart et al., 2002). These indicators are strongly connected to an innovative framework for
assessing the impact of the third mission of the University, and enhancing collaboration with their
external stakeholders (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002).

6. Critique: IC management at Ca’ Foscari University

This section critiques IC management in action at Ca’ Foscari (Guthrie et al., 2012), thus contributing
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

to the ‘practice turn’ of IC research (Guthrie and Dumay, 2015). In particular, this paper applies a
critical approach to discuss how stakeholders’ engagement creates value in Ca’ Foscari’s
management of IC given its third mission (Secundo et al., 2016). The what and why elements are
governed by a competitive environment and cannot be modified by individual organisations. These
questions are central to debates about the nature and purpose of universities, which is outside the
purpose of our research. Therefore, we focus on the how and who elements of Secundo et al.’s
(2016) framework, and analyse Ca’ Foscari University’s three main processes for achieving their third
mission goal. To develop a critique this paper highlights three main messages.

6.1 The human capital: moving outside the university’s boundaries

First, the Ca’ Foscari case study provides insight into the dominant role of human capital in
universities. Traditionally, graduates are viewed as part of human capital (Córcoles et al., 2011, p.
368). As Veltri and Silvestri, (2015, p. 450) state, alumni are important stakeholders who create the
environment in which universities operate, and therefore represents internal human capital that
becomes external when students graduate. Measures like the ‘N° of students who have participated
in international mobility programmes’ are examples of this. These metrics allow Ca’ Foscari
University to expand its human capital outside its boundaries, and in doing so, they blur the
distinction between internal and external human capital. Hence, all human capital becomes part of
the University’s ecosystem. This is consistent with the fourth stage of IC research that helps
“navigate the knowledge created by countries, cities and communities and advocates how
knowledge can be widely developed thus switching from a managerial to an ecosystem focus”
(Dumay and Garanina, 2013, p. 21).

Additionally, some performance metrics, such as the number of joint degrees (Process 1) and the
amount of ‘incoming’ human capital from international universities, are consistent with the
important role played by the students in building an entrepreneurial culture at universities (Pittaway
and Cope, 2007). This type of indicator shifts the focus of IC from a single organisation to its
ecosystem where knowledge is created and developed on a wider scale (Dumay and Garanina,
2013).

6.2 The external stakeholders’ engagement

10
 Second, the strategies used by Ca’ Foscari University in IC Management require a major commitment
of external stakeholders. For example, initiatives like the launch of the ‘Founders and Partners’
project provides private and public entities with the opportunity to promote scholarships, or to
providing naming rights to classrooms, research centres and laboratories. By participating in these
initiatives, external stakeholders are directly engaged in the transfer of knowledge between
universities and their ecosystems. They and are benefitting from the production of appropriately
skilled human capital, the transfer of technology from academia to industry, the creation of frame-
breaking basic knowledge, and the involvement in the launch of new start-up (Lazzeroni and
Piccaluga, 2003).

Measuring the number of external stakeholders that attend events designed to increase brand
awareness is a mean of assessing how university human capital is integrated into the local
community, further strengthening the ecosystem approach through the stakeholders. In this way,
external stakeholders increase the University’s human capital that becomes an identity crafted
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

around the ability and knowledge of what an organisation can do (Mouritsen et al., 2005).
Additionally, stakeholders that engage with entrepreneurial universities begin acting in accordance
with the values of entrepreneurship, thus translating concepts into action (Fayolle and Redford,
2014).

6.3 The balancing of IC and financial indicators

Third, the IC indicators chosen use a balance of intellectual and financial measures to create a more
holistic view of the IC ecosystem (Borin and Donato, 2015), thus allowing a new approach for
understanding the drivers of social value creation. This is consistent with Borin and Donato’s (2015,
p. 286) view that “The nurturing of an ecosystem based on knowledge flow and sharing of IC among
the different stakeholders seems essential not only to promote the development of the territory but
also to bring positive societal renewal and innovation”. Including indicators related to structural
capital, such as the launch of the Venetian Business School, requires a strict relationship to both
relational capital and human capital (Habersam and Piber, 2003). However, in knowledge-intensive
organisations, such as universities and research centres, the three IC elements are strongly
connected (Habersam and Piber, 2003) and this is reflected in the metrics adopted by Ca’ Foscari
University in its strategic plan. Evolving from previous concepts of IC, this convergence of human,
relational and structural capital toward a new dimension of IC, especially social capital which
incorporates citizenship and collective intelligence, justifies the need for new IC logic and growth of
the interest in the dynamic process of value creation, including the interdependencies and
knowledge, flows between different stakeholders (Borin and Donato, 2015).

7. Transformative redefinition and conclusion

Mouritsen and Roslender (2009, p. 802) argue that IC would “benefit from a more thoroughly critical
perspective, something which, to date, has not featured widely in the literature”. In this section, we
move beyond the analysis of one case study to reflect on a transformative redefinition of IC
management, within universities that adopt a collective intelligence approach to the fourth stage of
IC research.

A university setting is ideal for these purposes, since “universities have been undergoing major
changes in the scope of activities, structures, processes and relationships since late in the 20th

11
 century” (Parker, 2002, p. 603). As universities become more stakeholder-oriented in line with their
third mission goals, IC is increasingly becoming more fundamental and a transformative redefinition
that encompasses the value of collective intelligence is required. We now consider each element of
the collective intelligence approach (what, who, why and how) in turn. The recommended changes
are summarised in Table VIII and better described in the following subsections.

Please Insert Table VIII here

7.1 What: Mission

The results of the analysis show that Ca’ Foscari University’s IC has been a crucial element in
intentionally transforming the university into a more entrepreneurial institution with increased
accountability for both internal and external stakeholders. This includes the rector taking a
managerial role and defining strategic objectives and actions for university’s governing board and
stakeholders during the process of developing the strategic plan. Universities do not change quickly,
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

rather a long-term change in attitudes, routines, and culture and values is required. The IC-rooted,
multi-target-oriented structure of the IC measures described in the case study help Ca’ Foscari
University to rebalance its stakeholder engagement according to the third mission.

Rebalancing the stakeholder structure means that universities have to transform into a more
society-oriented institution. In turn, an IC measurement system combines governance and
management with accountability, which sharpens the consciousness and self-understanding of
public organisations acting for various stakeholders (Habersam et al., 2013, p. 336). A new
representation of IC is required, in which measures are focused on different stakeholders and are
combined to create social value.

7.2 Who: Stakeholders’ engagement

Ca’ Foscari University shows several levels of connectivity. Alumni and visiting students, as internal
human capital, are used to balance and support external human capital. More precisely, students
and researchers engage with companies, institutions and citizens. This connectivity in IC is crucial for
management to understand and direct appropriate attention to the organisation’s governance
processes (Skoog, 2003).

Mouritsen (2009) is critical of what he considers insufficient awareness of the interaction between
assets which stems from a reliance on balance sheet logic. To understand ‘customer satisfaction’, for
example, it is necessary to consider non-financial indicators, such as employees, suppliers, and
competitors alongside financial indicators. Following these suggestions, Ca’ Foscari University’s
measures are focused on relational capital, structural capital, and both internal and external human
capital. These measures are integrated within the specific aims of the organisation to show their
interdependence. More importantly, their third mission is achieved through synergies between all
three University missions. The three missions cannot be treated separately, and it is not possible to
identify measurements that only relate to the third mission. As an example of this idea, Ca’ Foscari
University’s strategic plan reinforces the need to enhance the quality of teaching and research to
provide deeper impacts for the entire region.

12
 7.3 Why: Vision
Overall, the analysis shows that Ca’ Foscari University is not providing a new way to measure IC.
Rather, their IC management focusses on integrating new stakeholders into its performance metrics,
shifting the focus from how IC is measured to why IC is measured. At Ca’ Foscari University, IC
involves stakeholders who are beyond the university’s control, and human capital assumes an
external perspective. This redefines the boundaries of the University as contributing to the IC
ecosystem. In other words, it is not possible to continue distinguishing between internal and
external human capital when both their contributions to IC are measured collectively. Similarly,
notions of value also shift from financial measures to social measures. As Dumay et al. (2010) argue,
monetary wealth is not always the primary objective – especially for organisations with higher order
goals, such as public services and not-for-profits.

7.4 How: Processes and indicators

Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Similarly, Dumay (2009) argues for a change in accounting-oriented IC – an agenda he terms

‘accountingization’ – to create better communication and understanding of organisational value
creation when measuring IC, and broadens current perspectives. Alternative approaches like
narratives and visualisations (Mouritsen et al., 2001), or connectivity can act as a counter-balance. A
focus on connectivity reveals the dysfunctional consequences of separation and adds a new basis for
managerial decision making (Habersam and Piber, 2003). It is evident that most management
control processes must consider the relationships between different organisational aspects in
addition to the respective individual resources and activity (Skoog, 2003).

7.5 Concluding remarks

This paper presents a critical case study that applies a collective intelligence approach to managing
IC in a university setting. The framework, developed by Secundo et al. (2016), is used to analyse IC
management through stakeholders’ engagement at Ca’ Foscari University in Venice, Italy. Alvesson
and Deetz’s (2000) critical management tasks structure the methodology and frame the results into
insights, critiques and transformative redefinitions.

Two main research questions are investigated: How can IC be strategically managed within
universities to capture the distinctive role of all stakeholders to achieve academia’s third mission?
and How can IC management support universities to create social value in the wider ecosystems in
which they operate?. Findings highlight that the evolving mission of universities requires a shift in
the focus of their IC management and measurement systems in line with the third and fourth stages
of IC research (Guthrie et al., 2012; Dumay and Garanina, 2013).

Finally, findings also indicate that, in thinking about the concept of IC as an ecosystem (Borin and
Donato, 2015), it is more appropriate to include a wider set of intangible assets that relate to a
university’s external environment. This explains why public sector IC researchers are willing to
explore new ground and experiment with IC in practice (Chiucchi and Dumay, 2015; Vagnoni and
Oppi, 2015). However, producing IC measures may be counterproductive because, as Gowthorpe
(2009) outlines, “it is more likely that IC metrics will be interpreted in some quarters as offering new
and exciting ways to bully people”, rather than using these measures to create value. Therefore, we
need to extend IC research beyond the boundaries of accounting for wealth and be cognisant of the
values IC creates beyond organisational boundaries.

13
 Limitations of the study include the analysis of a critical case study in the public sector, located in
Italy. Future research will be devoted to applying the framework in real-life settings by extending the
findings to private universities located in different countries. This limitation can open to new
researches focused on extending our findings, involving university board and all the internal
university stakeholders in the design of new experimental scenarios.

8. References
Alvesson, M., and Deetz, S. (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. London: Sage.
Beckman, G. D. and Cherwitz, R. A. (2009). Intellectual entrepreneurship: an authentic foundation
for higher education reform. Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 4,pp. 27–36.
Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial Universities and technology transfer: a
conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of
Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, pp. 175 - 188.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Bontis, N. (2001), Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual
capital, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No.1, pp. 41-60.
Borin, E. and Donato, F. (2015). Unlocking the potential of IC in Italian cultural ecosystems. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 285–304.
Bramwell, A. and Wolfe, D. A. (2005). Universities and regional economic development: the
entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Paper presented at the CPSA Annual Conference,
London, Ontario.
Brereton, M. and Temple, M. (1999). The new public service ethos: an ethical environment for
governance. Public Administration, Vol. 77 No. (3,pp. 455–74.
Castellanos, A. R. and Rodriguez, A. (2004). University R&D&T capital: what types of knowledge drive
it? Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No.3, pp. 478-499.
Chiucchi, M. S. and Dumay, J. (2015). Unlocking intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 16 No.2, pp. 305-330.
Córcoles, Y. R., Peñalver, J. F. S., and Ponce, Á. T. (2011). Intellectual capital in Spanish public
universities: stakeholders’ information needs. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No.(3,pp.
356–376.
Dumay, J. (2009). Intellectual capital measurement: a critical approach. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 190-210.
Dumay, J. (2013). The third stage of IC: towards a new IC future and beyond. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 5-9.
Dumay, J. (2016). A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: from reporting to
disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. (1, pp. 168-184.
Dumay, J. and Garanina, T. (2013). Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the third
stage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
Dumay, J. and Guthrie, J. (2012). Intellectual capital and strategy as practice: A critical examination.
International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 28-37.
Dumay, J. and Rooney, J. (2011). Dealing with an ageing workforce: Current and future implications.
Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 3, 174-195.
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Farneti, F. (2010) GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third
sector organizations: A critical review, Public Management Review, Vol. 12 No.4, pp. 531-548
E3M, 2010. Needs and constraints analysis of the three dimensions of third mission activities. E3M:
European Indicators and Ranking Methodology for University Third Mission. [online]. Available

14
 from: http://www.e3mproject.eu/docs/Three-dim-third-mission-act.pdf [Accessed 10 January
2015].
Edvinsson, L. (2013). IC 21: Reflections from 21 years of IC practice and theory. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 163-172.
Edvinsson, L. and Lin, C. Y. Y. (2012). National intellectual capital model and measurement.
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 58-82.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25–32.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorf, L. (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and
"Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, Vol.
29 No.2,pp. 109-123.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Fayolle, A. and Redford, D. T., (eds), 2014. Handbook on the Entrepreneurial University. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Feld, B. (ed). (2012). Classical Problems in Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem In Your City. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gibb, A. and Haskin, G. (2014). The university of the future: an entrepreneurial stakeholder learning
organization? in Fayolle, A. and Redford, D. T. (eds). 2014. Handbook on the Entrepreneurial
University. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gowthorpe, C. (2009) Wider still and wider? A critical discussion of intellectual capital recognition,
measurement and control in a boundary theoretical context, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 823-834.
Guthrie, J. and Dumay, J. (2015). New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public sector.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 258-266.
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., and Ricceri, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No.2, pp. 254-271.
Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., and Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual
capital accounting research. British Accounting Review, Vol. 44 No.2, pp. 68-92.
Habersam, M. and Piber, M. (2003). Exploring intellectual capital in hospitals: Two qualitative case
studies in Italy and Austria. European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No.4, pp. 753-779.
Habersam, M., Piber, M., and Skoog, M. (2013). Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian universities:
The implementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and management practices. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 4-5, pp. 319–337.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., and Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities:
Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, Vol. 56, pp.
303-324.
Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of
university activities? Higher Education Policy, Vol. 20, pp. 441-456.
Lazzeroni, M. and Piccaluga, A. (2003).Towards the entrepreneurial university. Local Economy, 18,
40-44.
Malone, T. W., Atlee, T., and Lévy, P. (2008). Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at
Peace. Oakton, VA: Earth Intelligence Network.
Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., and Dellarocas, C. (2010). The collective intelligence genoma. MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 51 No.3, pp. 21-31.

15
 Margherita, A. and Secundo, G. (2011). The stakeholder university as learning model of the extended
enterprise. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 30 No.(2,pp. 175–186.
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., and Garlatti, A. (2015). Public sector knowledge management: A structured
literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No.3, pp. 530–558.
McNay, I. (1995). From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise: the changing cultures of
universities. In T. Schuller (ed) The Changing University? Buckingham: SRHE/Open University
Press, pp. 105–15.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods
Sourcebook, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., McAdam, R. (2014) The changing university business model: A stakeholder
perspective. R&D Management, Vol. 44 No.(3, pp. 265-287.
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Duran, X. (2002) Measuring third stream activities. Final report
to the Russel group of universities, Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.
Molas-Gallart, J. and Castro-Martínez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Mission’ indicators, Research Evaluation, Vol. 16 No.(4, pp. 321-330.

Mouritsen, J. (2009). Classification, measurement and the ontology of intellectual capital entities.
Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 13 No.2, pp. 154-162.
Mouritsen, J. and Roslender, R. (2009). Critical intellectual capital. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 20 No. (7,pp. 801-803.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T., and Bukh, P. N. (2005). Dealing with the knowledge economy: intellectual
capital versus balanced scorecard. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. (1, pp.. 8-27.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T., Bukh, P. N., and Johansen, M. R. (2001). Reading an intellectual
capital statement. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 359-383.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghosal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organisational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2,pp. 242-266.
Paloma Sánchez, M., Elena, S. and Castrillo, R. (2009) "Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: a
reporting model", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp.307 – 324.
Paloma Sánchez, M. and Elena, S. (2006), "Intellectual capital in universities: Improving transparency
and internal management", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp.529 – 548.
Parker, L. D. (2002). It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and critique of
university change management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 5-6,pp. 603–
619.
Philpott, K. Dooley, L., Oreilly, C., and Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining
the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, Vol. 31 No. (4, 161–170.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning: Integrating Experiental and
Collaborative Approaches to Learning”. Management Learning, Vol. 38 No.(2, pp. 211-233.
Qu, S. Q. and Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,pp. 238–264.
Redford, D.T. and Fayolle, A., 2014. Stakeholder management and the entrepreneurial university. In
Fayolle, A., and Redford, D. T. (Eds). Handbook on the Entrepreneurial University, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Riege, A. and Lindsay, N. (2006). Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder
partnerships in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10
No.3,pp. 24–39.
Romano, A., 2009. Open Business Innovation Leadership: The Emergence of the Stakeholder
University. Oxford: Palgrave.

16
 Sánchez, M. P., Elena, S., and Castrillo, R. (2009). Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: a
reporting model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No.2,pp. 307–324.
Secundo, G., Elena- Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž., and Leitner, K. H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity
model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities: A dynamic
approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No.(2,pp. 419–442.
Secundo, G. and Elia, G. (2014). A performance measurement systems for academic
entrepreneurship. Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No.3, pp. 23-37.
Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G., and Passiante, G. (2016). Managing intellectual capital through
a collective Intelligence approach: An integrated framework for universities. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No.(2),pp. 1-23.
Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, G., and Passiante, G. (2010). Intangible assets in higher education
and research: Mission, performance or both? Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 11 No.2, pp.
140-157.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Shah, S. K. and Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative – qualitative
divide. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 8,pp. 1821–1835.
Siegel, D. S. and Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? British Journal of
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 582–595.
Skoog, M. (2003). Visualizing value creation through the management control of intangibles. Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp.. 487-504.
Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations. Doubleday-Currency,
London.
Vagnoni, E. and Oppi, C. (2015). Investigating factors of intellectual capital to enhance achievement
of strategic goals in a university hospital setting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No.2,
pp. 331-363.
Veltri, S. and Silvestri, A. (2015). The Free State University integrated reporting: A critical
consideration. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 443–462.
Yin, R. K. (2014 - Kindle edition). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th Ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

i
According to Miles et al. (2013) NVivo coding “is one of the most well-known qualitative coding. NVivo coding
uses words or short phrases from the participant’s own language in the data record as codes”.

17
 Author biographies

Giustina Secundo is Senior Researcher in Management Engineering at University of Salento (Italy).

Her research is characterized by a cross-disciplinary focus, with a major interest towards Intellectual
capital Management, Academic Entrepreneurship, knowledge intensive Entrepreneurship and Open
innovation. Her research activities have been documented in about 120 international papers. She
sits in the board of Journal of Intellectual Capital and International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research. She's lecturer of Project management at the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Salento since 2001. Across 2014 and 2015 she has been visiting researcher at the
Innovation Insights Hub, University of the Arts London (UK). She can be contacted at:
giusy.secundo@unisalento.it.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Maurizio Massaro, Ph. D., has been an assistant professor at Udine University since 2008. Before
joining academia, he was founder and CEO of multiple consultancy firms. He has also served as a
research center Vice President in the field of metal analysis. He has been a visiting Professor at
Florida Gulf Coast University and Leicester University. He enjoys several contacts and research
partnerships with universities in the USA, continental Europe, UK and Australia. His research
interests include knowledge management, intellectual capital, sustainability in international
business, and research methods.

Carlo Bagnoli is Associate Professor of Business Policy and Strategy at the Department of
Management, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. He received a Ph.D. in Business Economics at Ca’
Foscari University of Venice. He was visiting research fellow at the University of Florida. He is
Scientific Director of the Innovarea Project funded by the Regional Italian Government. His research
interests include knowledge management, competitive strategy, business model innovation. Carlo’s
research work has been published in various outlets, including the Journal of Business Economics
and Management, Industrial Management & Data System, Journal of Management and Governance
and Journal of Intellectual Capital

18
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Figure 1. Applying Alvesson and Deetz’s three tasks at the research framework of Secundo et al.

Research framework of Secundo et al. Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000) three tasks for data analy
(2016)

WHAT, WHO, WHY, HOW 1. INSIGHTS: Understand the phenomenon

WHAT, WHO, WHY, HOW 2. CRITIQUE: Question the dominant messages

WHAT, WHO, WHY, HOW 3. TRANSFORMATIVE RIDEFINITIONS: Redefine what w

about the phenomenon
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Figure 2: The framework for IC practice in Ca’ Foscari University using the collective intelligence approach (adapted fro

THIRD MISSION

Internal Stakeholders External Stakeholders

Professors, lecturers and other researchers, Enterprises, Alumni, Other Universities
Administrateive offices, Members of the boards,
directors of departments, Students

-E
in

-
a
IMPROVING THE IMPACT OF CA’ FOSCARI AT LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNAT. LEVEL
• Launching projects and events to promote the brand "Ca' Foscari“ -
• Consolidating and Developing relations with the most prestigious international a
Universities D
• Increasing the visibility of the research at national and international level

INTEGRATING CA’ FOSCARI WITH THE OTHER INSTITUTES IN VENETO REGION

• Promoting a Venetian University Centre
• Promoting experimental projects for the development of a higher education system

ENHANCING A BETTER INTEGRATION WITH THE LOCAL GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

MEASURES

STRUCTURAL RELATIONAL
HUMAN CAPITAL
CAPITAL CAPITAL
 Table I: Stakeholders involved in developing Ca’ Foscari University’s strategic plan and the aim of their
involvement
Stakeholders
Internal Stakeholders
Professors, lecturers,
and other researchers
Administrative offices
Members of the boards, directors
of departments
Students
External stakeholders
Enterprises
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)
Alumni
Other universities
Aim of their involvement

To focus on international research projects that promote the Ca’ Foscari brand

To focus on research projects with important practical implications that can be used
in the region

To support connections with the local area (enterprises, etc.)

To involve external stakeholders (e.g. CEO of important companies, etc.)
in university decisions

To be more involved as brand ambassadors of the University

To involve Professors and Lecturers in the boards of the most important companies
in the area

To facilitate connections between the University and the local area

To collaborate with Ca’ Foscari to be more attractive for their own students and
enterprises
 Table II. Process 1 - Strategy 1: launching projects and events to promote the “Ca‘ Foscari Brand”

Theory Interviews/ Description in Actions Measures of the Impact in terms of IC

mind maps the strategic plan strategic plan measures
Students as part of HC “We graduate “The alumni network is Launch of “Year of the N° of enrolled Alumni / Focus on internal and
(Córcoles et al. 2011, hundreds of students an opportunity to Alumni“ and, “Ca‘ Total graduates of the external human capital
p. 368) each year. We need to increase collaboration Foscari 2018“ year (students and Alumni)
be able to attract with local and
Alumni as stakeholders students all over the international entities” Launch of cross events N° of subscribers of
to influence society world and keep a (p. 42) with interim basis the mailing list
(Veltri and Silvestri, strong connection with (e.g., Ca‘ Foscari „events“
2015, p. 450) them. They are our International Lectures) Events duration (in
best brand or yearly basis (e.g., days)
ambassadors and can Ca‘ Foscari Digital
help us in shaping Week, VENight) Occupation days of the
future relationships exhibition space / 360
with new business Launch of theatrical
reality. They are the events, musical events, N° of products
human capital we film events, literary published by Edizioni
prepare for the events and museum Ca‘ Foscari / Total
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

society” [Interview events, as well as the products published

code: I1] ARTnight during the year

Opportunity of Alumni Configuration of the

(Strategic Map code: offer of exhibition
I3) space and
representation and
Opportunity of Alumni starting of the Campus
(Strategic Map code: Store
I5)
Starting a University
publishing activity
 Table III. Process 1 - Strategy 2: Increasing partnerships and mobility with international universities

Theory Interviews / Mind Description in Actions Measures of the Impact in terms of IC

maps the strategic plan Strategic Plan measures
Cost effective way to “We need to attract “Develop an Realisation of double Double and/or joint Focus on relational
acquire knowledge visiting students from international approach and joint degrees with titles / Total titles capital, structural
(Riege and Lindsay, key Universities in the that allows through prestigious foreign offered in the year capital and
2006, p) world to better the teaching activity universities internal/external
understand those the development of N° of students who human capital
countries and how the knowledge Consolidation and have participated in
those economies are required by the development of international mobility
evolving creating the territory and the relations with programs
premise for future country” (p. 4) prestigious foreign
Partnerships fail due business universities / N° of enrolled
to cultural differences collaborations in those students in good
(Carayannis et al state, areas. Similarly, we Stipulation of standing with the fees
2014, p. 611) need to send our agreements with payments
students using visiting prestigious foreign
Use students for periods there” universities to develop N° of international
building an [Interview code: I1] reciprocal actions of internships/ Total
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

entrepreneurial placement internships

culture (Pittaway and Attract visiting
Cope , 2006 ) students from abroad Starting itinerant N of itinerant
(Strategic Map Code: executive MBA executive MBA
I5) programs which
provide the holding of N° of foreign students
courses at other from countries in Asia
prestigious foreign and Africa / Total
universities foreign incoming
students
Development of
relations with strategic N° of foreign students
geographical areas for from countries in Latin
the university: Asian America / Total foreign
countries, Latin incoming students
American countries,
Russia, East Europe N° of foreign students
and the Balkans from Russia, East
Europe and Balkans /
Total foreign incoming
students
 Table IV: Process 1 - Strategy 3: Increasing the visibility of research

Theory Interviews / mind Description in Actions Measures Impact in terms of IC

maps the strategic plan measures
Provide a true and fair“Ca’ Foscari has “Reaching excellence Increase the ability to Double and/or joint Focus on comparable
view of goals and IC difficulties in levels of research can make known the titles / Total titles measures of published
resources (Sánchez et communicating with increase the products of Research offered in the year research
al. 2009, p. 320) the external world and relationships with at national and
this increases the other universities, international level
N° of students who
IC should be isolation of the increase the have participated in
considered including University system … participation to funded Increase the Ca‘ international mobility
Research findings research project and
the whole ecosystem Foscari knowledge and programs / N° of
(Edvinsson and Lin, should be better generally increase the research activity enrolled students in
communicated to awareness of the
2009, 2012). results by completing good standing with the
allow the external territory on the role of the „projects and fees payments
world to better Venice” (p., 19) skills“ database and
There is a lack of understand the role of
understanding due to the University, giving it adequate
the absence of general connecting the visibility on the
University website
rules (Sánchez et al. teaching and the
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

2009, p. 320) research function of

the University,
enhancing the
dialogue with the
external world
[Interview code: I1]”

Increase awareness of
Ca' Foscari’s role
(Strategic Map code:
I3)

Increase
communication of
research results to
stakeholders of the
territory (Strategic
Map Code: I5)

Develop internal
measures to evaluate
research results
(Strategic Map Code:
I9)
 Table V: Process 2 – Strategy 1: Promoting local cooperation with other universities

Theory Interviews / Mind Description in Actions Measures Impact in terms of IC

maps the strategic plan measures
Stakeholder “We need to integrate “Ca' foscari University Starting of teaching and N° of Ca‘ Foscari Shared Human Capital
engagement our activities within will pursue the aim of joint research initiatives students involved in as Students involved in
(Redford and other Universities developing a Venetian between Ca‘ Foscari, inter-university titles Venitian intra courses
Fayolle, 2014; creating specialization. higher education IUAV, Studium (Venice) / (Total
Romano, 2009) This could allow us to system to support Generale Marcianum, enrolled students in
get researchers and student exchanges and Conservatory good standing with the
students attracted by to develop joint Benedetto Marcello fees payment/10)
our specialization. research projects” (p. and the Academy of
Knowledge flow Additionally this could 25) Fine Arts
between increase our visibility in
stakeholders the local area
(Edvinsson and Lin, [Interview code: I2]”
2009)

Collaborations among
Venice Universities
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

(Strategic map code: I5]

 Table VI: Process 2 – Strategy 2: Experimenting in higher education projects

Theory Interviews / Mind Description in Actions Measures Impact in terms of IC

Maps the strategic plan measures
Human capital as a “We need to develop “Develop a Venecian Starting into Univeneto N° of Ca‘ Foscari Focus on internal and
source of strategic experimental pole to compete with of inter-university PhDs students enrolled in external human capital
innovation in the projects to support the most important in Historical Sciences inter-university PhDs / (students and visiting
University and for development of research centers all and Economic Sciences Total enrolled students students)
the Region entrepreneurship over the world and and the inter-university in Ca‘ Foscari PhDs
(Margherita and culture in the area become the engine of Doctoral School in programs
Secundo, 2011). [Strategic map code: innovation in the area” History of Arts
I6]” (p. 24)
N° of Ca‘ Foscari
Role of university Study at Univeneto of students involved in
stakeholders additional inter- inter-university –titles
(Romano, 2009) university educational (Veneto) / (Total
projects of 2nd and 3rd enrolled students in
level good standing with the
fees payment/10)
Activation of „Regional
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

Erasmus“ N° of students that

participate in Regional
Launch of a Venetian Erasmus / Total
enrolled students in
Business School also
recovering the good standing with the
experience of CUOA fees payment/10)
Foundation
N. of Venetian Business
Launch of a Veneto ILO School
for the supply of the
following services: Launch of a Veneto ILO
patents, spin-offs,
company support for
technology and
strategic consulting,
business plan
competition, business
incubation
 Table VII Process 3 – Strategy 1: Promoting and enhancing the Foundation Ca’ Foscari

Theory Interviews / Mind Description in Actions Measures Impact in terms of IC

maps the strategic plan measures
Engagement of We need to let our “We need to extend Development of Ca‘ Foundations Focus on financial
students and stakeholders our presence in the Foscari Foundation so Ca’Foscari Revenues measures as proxi of
researchers with understand the territory to increase that the external net of the University IC
non-academic opportunity they can the value of our interlocutors can contribution
stakeholders have being part of the teaching activity and make use of its
(Molas-Gallart et University. We need thus increase our services regarding Increase of the net
al., 2002). to explain our funding activities” (p. consulting and equity of the
researchers and our 27) research, training,
Foundation
IC indicators students the stage and placement,
opportunity that they certifications in
chosen are based Creation of an
on financial can have being part of various fields
the community. We innovation and
measures can
need to invite strategic board
create a more Launch of the (on/off)
holistic view of entrepreneurs to take „Founders and
the IC ecosystem part to our board and Partners“ project to
we need to have our
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

(Borin and engage private and

Donato, 2015) researchers part of public entities into the
company’s boards.
Foundation,
[Strategic map code:
I12]
Creating an
Innovation and a
Strategic Board of the
Ca‘ Foscari
Foundation
 Table VIII. Transformation of IC management in universities using a collective intelligence approach

Transformation Redefinition or change for universities Contribution to the fourth stage

of IC management of IC research
in universities:
WHAT:
the third mission (social engagement and regional Connectivity among IC components,
Mission development) becomes the priority for University blurs the distinction between them, and
models. links internal and external IC

WHO:
collective involvement of all the stakeholders is Definition of the human capital
Stakeholder fundamental for IC management in universities ecosystem
engagement internal human capital is balanced by external human
capital (alumni and visiting students)

internal stakeholders (students and researchers) are
balanced with non-academic stakeholders
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 06:08 25 November 2017 (PT)

(companies, institutions, citizens)

WHY:
social value creation (not wealth creation) is the main IC impact is defined at university and
Vision motivation behind IC Management society level, through social and

sustainable value creation is realised through the
sustainable value creation
impact of IC outcomes on the future university
communities
HOW:
the focus of IC management shifts from how to IC measures and processes are
Processes and measure IC to why IC is measured implemented by including new

IC measures should integrate new stakeholders who stakeholders to impact university
indicators
are used as management technology ecosystems

IC measures are grouped within the specific objectives
of the organization to show their interdependence

internal and external stakeholders are collectively
engaged to create and measure IC