Pedro 2019

Machine Translated by Google
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight
at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
Intellectual
The intellectual capital of higher education capital of HEIs
institutions
Operationalizing measurement through a
strategic prospective lens 355
Eugenia Pedro Received 23 July 2018

Department of Management and Economics, Revised 12 November 2018
17 February 2019
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal and Accepted March 3, 2019
NECE – Research Center in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
João Leitão
NECE and C-MAST,
University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal and
CEG-IST and ICS, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Helena Alves
Department of Management and Economics,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal and
NECE – Research Center in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an innovative operational proposal for measuring the intellectual capital
(IC) of higher education institutions (HEIs) through a strategic prospective lens of analysis.
Design/methodology/approach – After providing a literature review on the methods for measuring IC that focuses on the
organizational IC of HEIs, four case studies applied to Portuguese HEIs are presented, using a matrix of cross-referenced
impacts – multiplications applied to a classification (MICMAC) approach.
Findings – The empirical findings reveal how human capital, structural capital and relational capital make up the core
components and provide a fairly diversified list of the measurement indicators for the operational evaluation of the IC of
HEIs.
Practical implications – It contributes into the literature of prospective strategic analysis of HEIs by: analyzing the
measurement systems for the organizational IC interrelated with HEIs; identifying the key components to the organizational
IC of HEIs and their respective measurement indicators; and drafting a new method for operationally implementing
organizational IC through the systematic application of the components and indicators identified.
Originality/value – Through an innovative vision, the present study reconciles and systematically structures the methods
already proposed by other authors before presenting an innovative operational approach and an alternative to the already
existing methods. In addition, the structure of this proposal itself enables HEIs to choose from among the various indicators
proposed for IC, correspondingly those that best align with the type of institution under evaluation.
Keywords Strategic management, Intellectual capital, Higher education institutions, MICMAC, Prospective Paper type
Research paper
The authors gratefully acknowledge the editor and the anonymous reviewers for providing very constructive and
useful comments that enabled us to make additional efforts to improve the clarity, scientific soundness, positioning Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol.
20 No. 3, 2019 pp.
and quality of our research. Funding: the authors acknowledge the financial support granted by Fundação para a 355-381 ©
Emerald Publishing Limited
Ciência ea Tecnologia (FCT) to the research project: “U-value”PTDC/EGE-OGE/29926/2017. 1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-07-2018-0117
JIC 1. Introduction HEIs
20.3 should compete more openly for teaching staff, researchers, students and financial funding, while also
adopting management procedures and producing reports and other informative documents that enable
internal and external bodies to evaluate their performance (Sánchez et al., 2009). This has caused
increased interest in application of the IC concept to HEIs (eg Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et
al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Veltri et al., 2014; Santos-Rodrigues et al. , 2015).
356
To deal with multiple missions and fulfill their duties regarding the provision of accounts, HEIs need to
improve management mechanisms, accountability and the presentation of results (Sánchez et al., 2009).
As recognized by Chatterton and Goddard (2000), responding to new demands also requires new types
of resources and new forms of management to allow HEIs to make a more dynamic contribution to
effective fulfillment of their development process.
In this context, HEIs have been recognized as critical actors in national innovation systems to fulfill the
Lisbon Strategy in relation to creating a Europe of Knowledge (OEU, 2006), and the European Union has
also issued a specific recommendation to promote IC reports in HEIs and research institutions (European
Commission, 2006). The OEU (2006) also mentions that in the near future, publishing information about
IC should be mandatory for this type of institution.
More recently, researchers have shown greater interest in the application and management of IC in
the HEI context (eg Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Veltri
et al., 2014; Santos-Rodrigues et al., 2015). However, so far, little attention has been paid to the use of
prospective analysis methods that allow assessment and greater adoption of IC management practices in
HEIs, following a strategic vision over time. Added to this is the difficulty of measuring the intangible nature
of IC, confirmed by previous attempts to propose indicators to measure and operationalize the concept,
above all in the organizational context. This is reflected in studies that focus on situational, short-term
visions that are unable to produce a matrix to serve as a guide to decision making based on IC
management practices oriented towards a long-term strategic vision of organizations. The exception is
found in studies that use different types of prospective analyses, namely systemic analysis (Elena-Pérez
et al., 2011), analysis based on scenarios (Serna, 2013) and analysis using the Delphi technique (Munar
et al., 2014 ), which although providing analyzes applied in the HEI context, are based on different
approaches from the one presented here.
The study by Elena-Pérez et al. (2011) provides a systematic prospective analysis aiming to indicate
future directions for academic departments, helping to identify future research topics and curricula; and to
define strategies for human resources, with a view to carrying out those research activities and offering
new courses.
In Serna (2013), the analysis is based on hypothetical scenarios and specific actions in the context of
systems of competitive intelligence and technological surveillance, to identify the most relevant variables
to be monitored by research groups, as a preliminary step towards subsequent exercises of technological
forecasting.
Munar et al. (2014) measured the variables of intellectual capital (IC) in the University of Atacama, for
a future ten-year period, using the Delphi technique, which is a method of group decision making
characterized by each group member presenting their ideas but never face -to-face with the other elements.
This study differs from the three previously presented in two ways. First, it uses a structural analysis
method, which is a systemic method in the form of a matrix (MICMAC), to analyze the relationships
between the variables forming the system studied and those belonging to its explanatory context, aiming
to reveal the main influencing and dependent variables, and therefore the essential variables for
development of the system studied
(Godet and Durance, 2011). This method was originally developed by Godet (1979), Intellectual
providing in a given system the possibility of assessing which are the main influencers capital of HEIs (or
indicators) and dependent variables, through the creation of a constructed matrix with
variables previously selected by the researchers /users, which should also ensure their
adequate description. The use of this method provides also the possibility of designing
a case study approach based on a rigorous strategic prospective analysis, making use
of IC measurement indicators of HEIs. Second, the results obtained here provide in an 357
original way a matrix of prospective planning and control of HEIs' strategic decisions,
based on the paradigm of IC applied to HEIs, which was tested considering the views
of different experts and practitioners, emphasizing the importance of the implications
and insights presented in this research.
New measuring systems and the production of reports have enabled HEIs to attain a
higher level of transparency as regards how they spend public funding; explaining the
results of research, training, innovation and their benefits for stakeholders; illustrating the
development of their intangible assets; demonstrating the effects of leveraging and positive
externalities; the communication of organizational values; and demonstrating their own
competitiveness (Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014). However, these authors also warn
that in the majority of countries there is still no obligation or even recommendations for HEIs
to measure and submit information and details about their IC, a situation that persists today.
In this context, there is a need to identify just which initiatives have been subject to
development for the purposes of measuring HEIs' IC. In this scope, the current study
develops a proposal for the operational implementation of IC measurement for HEIs through
qualitative research based on analysis of the literature on the MICMAC methods of
measurement, with particular emphasis on the organizational intellectual capital (OIC) of
HEIs. In addition, in this case, qualitative research has advantages, as by not using
statistical methods, it allows incorporating multiple situations (Rahman, 2017) and is multi-
method in focus, involving an interpretive approach to the matter analyzed (Denzin and
Lincoln, 1994), including a series of interpretive techniques that seek to describe, decode,
translate and, alternatively, reach an agreement on the meaning, rather than the frequency,
of certain phenomena occurring naturally, to a greater or lesser extent, in the social world (Maanen, 1979).
The current proposal aims to: analyze the OIC measurement system related to the public
sector and especially HEIs, as detailed in the benchmark literature (advantages and
disadvantages); identify the core components of the OIC of HEIs and their respective
measurement indicators; and draft a proposal for an innovative operational approach to
measuring IC through systematization of the core components and their indicators identified
in the literature review and in presenting the multiple case studies.
There are various different forms of categorizing the OIC concept, whether by academics
or by organizational managers. Thus, we need to stress that the literature contains
numerous concepts for OIC (eg Sveiby, 1997; Bontis, 1998; Subramaniam and Youndt,
2005). In general terms, this study considers OIC as the combination of an organization's
intangible resources, which are represented by every type of knowledge, information,
intellectual property, among others, and which stems from human and technological
resources that provide the sources of the value added generated for all the organization's
stakeholders and forming a source of competitive advantage.
This study contributes to expanding understanding of the different ways of measuring IC
within the HEI context, whether undertaken by the research community or by HEI managers.
First, regarding theory, the study represents additional empirical confirmation of the triad of
capitals forming IC (Pedro et al., 2018), applied to the HEI context. Second, in terms of
application, it proposes a set of indicators gathered in the literature of reference, which is
tested and refined based on four case studies. Third, after determining the key
JIC indicators for each of the three main components of IC, a prospective, bi-dimensional
20.3 analysis is carried out, considering the degree of dependence between the decision
variables and the corresponding degree of influence. Fourth, prospective this analysis
allows the design of a strategic decision matrix setting out from the so-called input variables
which, after combinatorial analysis, can identify four fundamental types of variable for long-
term strategic decisions, ie intermediate; resultant; excluded; and clustered; these allowing
358 identification of the HEI's current strategic positioning, as well as future paths for their
sustainable development from a long-term perspective.
Through an innovative vision and a practical format, the present study reconciles and
systematically structures the methods already proposed by other authors, before presenting
an innovative operational approach and an alternative to existing methods. In addition, the
structure of the proposal itself enables HEIs to choose from the various indicators proposed
for IC, corresponding to those most aligned with the type of institution under evaluation.
2. Intellectual capital in the context of public HEIs Some

public organizations have engaged in significant and important efforts to measure, manage
and promote their IC. The existence of specific factors such as: the greater autonomy of
the university system (Sánchez et al., 2009); the emergence of the third mission involving
the social dimension of universities (Laredo, 2007); greater restrictions in state financing
(Chevaillier, 2002); have all fostered HEIs' adoption of a new vision and management
strategy deploying new tools that enable the inclusion of valuations of their intangible
assets into their reports and accounts (Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2009).
Other authors (including the European Commission, 2003; Leitner, 2004; Ramírez-Córcoles
et al., 2007; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015) also refer to cultural
changes enacted through a new focus on the production of knowledge and the
implementation of new research methods; policy changes reflected in the growing
internationalization of teaching and research; and, additionally, the pressure for greater
harmonization among the different higher education systems, for example, in the European
context with the Bologna process and the launch of the European Research Space.
IC ranks among the most critical and important resources for knowledge organizations
(Kamath, 2007), as is the case of HEIs given that their inputs and outputs are mostly
intangible and interrelated with knowledge. Correspondingly, HEIs produce knowledge (eg
research results, publications, patents, among others), convey knowledge through teaching
(Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014) and employ knowledge workers (Cong and Pandya,
2003).
The knowledge about the strategic role played by formal and informal relationships
established between internal and external stakeholders of HEIs (Mainardes et al., 2013),
which seems to be connected with the components of the HEIs organizational IC, has to
be deepened, in the sense that the interests convergence should be promoted among the
representatives of the HEIs' internal community and external entities' network. The internal
stakeholders are mainly concerned with students, staff and strategic or management
boards, whereas the external stakeholders denote an increasingly complex nature since it
embraces public and private institutions at the international, national and regional level
that need to co-create shared interests and goals using a common decision-making platform.
When referring to HEIs, the term IC covers all an institution's intangible or non-physical
assets, including its processes, capacities for innovation, patents, its members' tacit
knowledge and their abilities, talents and capacities, recognition by society, the network of
collaborators and their contacts, among others (Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Ramírez-
Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014). Furthermore, HEIs' most valuable resources include their
lecturers, researchers, management and administrative staff, governors and students and
the entire extent of their respective relationships and organizational routines (Leitner, 2004).
The human capital of HEIs is the sum of explicit and tacit knowledge held by all the Intellectual
human resources in the institution (teaching, research and development, capital of HEIs top-management
and management/administrative staff in all divisions), acquired through both formal
and non-formal education and the training processes included in their activities
(Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles and
Gordillo, 2014; Veltri and Silvestri, 2015).
The structural capital of HEIs encapsulates all explicit knowledge interrelated with the 359
internal processes of promotion, communication and the management of scientific and
technical knowledge in the organisation, which spans both the organizational (operating
environment derived from the interactions between research, management and the
organization of processes, organizational routines, corporate culture and values, internal
procedures, within the scope of quality and information systems, among others), and the
technological (technological resources available in the university, such as bibliographic and
documentary resources, archives, technical developments, patents , licenses, software,
databases, among others) facets (Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles and G
The relational capital of HEIs reflects the extensive collection of economic, political and
institutional relationships built up and maintained between HEIs and their non-academic
partners (companies, non-governmental organizations, local government and society in
general), as well as others perceptions about the institution in terms of its image, levels of
attractiveness, trust and security, among others (Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Veltri and Silvestri, 2015).
3. Reconciliation of the methods for measuring the HEIs organizational IC and operational
proposal The operational
proposal set out below opted for the Scorecard (SCC) method. The SCC method builds up a
table for evaluation, applicable due to its non-monetary methodology because, in the
perspective of Bontis (1998), monetary methods cover only a limited number of intangible
assets. Thus, non-monetary methods may produce more reliable results as they apply more
natural measurement scales for each indicator rather than converting everything into monetary
values, grouping the indicators into a consistent and coherent framework, based on the
components of IC (Daniels and Noordhuis, 2005). Examples of this method include: Intangibles
Assets Monitor by Sveiby (1997); and Skandia Navigator by Edvinsson and Malone (1997).
The SCC-based model methods provide a perspective on the past, the present and the
future, as well as a more generalized idea of the organization with one of the core emerging
advantages from its application encapsulating exactly this wide reaching vision of intangible
assets, which not only applies to any level of the organization but is also adaptable to any
type of organization. Among the other advantages are the speed of obtaining results and their
easily understood nature for the organization combined with the ease of adjustment when
detecting and correcting errors in organizational processes. While sensitive to changes in
context and difficulties in analyzing the quantity of information returned, according to Kok
(2007), SCC methods identify the various components of IC, enabling the generation of
indicators and indexes with their results being presented in a scorecard or in the form of
graphical representations and enabling closer measurement of the ongoing inputs, processes and results.
The same author also proposes that SCC models are the ones most commonly applied in
knowledge management, which also makes them applicable to measuring the IC of HEIs.
Taking the above into account, for the operational proposal under consideration here, the
challenge stems from measuring the IC of HEIs through recourse to the SCC approach with
a focus on the following five perspectives: financial; internal stakeholders; external
stakeholders; structural; and learning, renovation and entrepreneurship. These perspectives
incorporate the components of IC detailed above and the respective indicators returned by
the diverse studies consulted. Consequently, the SCC structure of HEIs' IC can be defined
according to the terms presented below.
JIC 3.1 The financial perspective

20.3 The majority of HEIs depend on state budgetary funding and their own revenue raised through enrollment
charges and other fees. Thus, there is a need to include some indicators to convey information about
the financial profitability and stability (public) or the cost-effectiveness/efficiency rate as proposed by
Leitner et al. (2014). Examples of such statistics include human resource expenditure and costs incurred
with R&D and information technology (IT), among others.
360
3.2 The internal stakeholders' perspective

Comparable to the human perspective of Skandia Navigator, this approach interacts dynamically with
all the other perspectives. This covers indicators related to HEIs' human capital, which includes all the
staff employed, covering the typology of personnel, their qualifications, technical and social competences
and leadership capacity, among others.
3.3 The structural perspective

This includes structural capital indicators and may also congregate indicators related to administrative,
academic and research structures as well as organizational facilities and infrastructure, among others.
Leitner et al. (2014) also incorporate in this approach those indicators related to financial objectives and
connected to financial and budgetary structures, the costs associated with R&D activities, innovation
and others.
3.4 The external stakeholder perspective This

perspective goes beyond the client perspective and interacts with the capacity to supply goods and
services of quality, with efficiency in the relationships with clients so as to gain their satisfaction (Leitner
et al., 2014). This perspective embraces every external HEI stakeholder and extends to the political,
social, cultural and environmental commitments made by HEIs. Thus, this contains indicators spanning
relational capital, taking into consideration facets such as student satisfaction, collaboration and
cooperation with other public and private organizations, social and environmental responsibilities, among
others.
3.5 The learning, renovation and entrepreneurship perspective This is

of great importance in that this perspective guarantees sustainability, serving as a foundation stone for
the generation of added value by sustainable means into the future.
This replaces the word development, as employed, for example, in Skandia Navigator, with that of
entrepreneurship[1]as this better adapts to the current HEI context and correspondingly represents a
key factor raised on various occasions in studies earlier (Laredo, 2007; Leitner et al., 2014; Drucker,
2015). This perspective incorporates all indicators that reflect factors including changes in attitude which
then drive innovation, foster entrepreneurship and the sustainability of HEIs. Among other aspects, such
indicators can highlight employee capacities for innovation, prototypes developed, spin-off companies
launched and training supplied and developed by staff.
In keeping with the above, Figure 1 presents the operational proposal for measuring the IC of HEIs.
This proposal arises out of the five analytical perspectives formed by a set of indicators referring to
HEIs' IC resources (human capital, structural capital and relational capital). The objective is not to
attribute any monetary value to the IC existing in HEIs but rather to evaluate and measure the total set
of knowledge in this institution in the form of its IC, ascertaining whether or not this is growing and
suggesting measures for better use of intangible assets. This considers different intangible factors for
each component, corresponding to variables shown by the aggregated indicators.
Inputs Perspectives Evaluation Elements Metrics Intellectual

Structural
capital of HEIs
• Typology of HC •
Capabilities and competences • Efficiency Human
human and efficacy
capital
Capital • Training
(i =1,…,m)
• Organizational capital •
Performance
Finance
Components
Technological capital
Structural Structural
Measurement
361
environment
Internal
HEIs
Capital capital
operating
Indicators
Stakeholders • Political, social, cultural and
entrepreneurship
(j =1,…,n)
IC
environmental commitments •
External cooperation/
renovation
Learning,
Intangible
Elements
and
collaboration
• Network development •
Efficiency of teaching • Image
Relational Relational
and public understanding
Capital of science • Relations with the capital
foreign world • Knowledge transfer
(k =1,…,o)
external
Stakeholders Figure 1.
Operational proposal for
Scenarios
measuring the IC of HEIs
Past Present Future
Source: Own elaboration
The final indicators returned by the literature review identify how these exist in large numbers
(102), especially when taking into account the requirement stipulated by Ramírez-Córcoles et
al. (2012) to include only a limited number of approximately 40. Therefore, to reduce and define
the key indicators and their corresponding weightings, we used case studies applied to four
Portuguese HEIs.
4. Methodology In
this item, we present methods organized into two parts. In the first one, the methods of
measuring IC components existing in the literature are identified, by making an innovative
application to the context of HEI, since until now previous research efforts had not
operationalized aggregating metrics regarding the dominant triad of IC components: human
capital ; structural capital; and relational capital; which forms the basis of HEI's IC. In the
second, the case study approach is described, presenting the case file, the questionnaire and
the categorization of the indicators, and the prospective strategic analysis using the MICMAC
methodology.
4.1 Methods to measure HEIs' organizational intellectual capital

The “Europe 2020” strategy purposely recognizes the central role of HEIs in helping Europe to
ensure intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth (European Commission, 2010). Thus, HEIs
have a fundamental role in regional development and significant potential for development and
implementation of the core strategies within the new Cohesion Policy framework (Kempton et
al., 2013).
Over the last decade, various studies have addressed the theme of IC in the public sector
and more specifically HEIs (eg Sánchez and Elena, 2006; Sánchez et al., 2009; Lee, 2010;
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Leitner et al., 2014; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Veltri
et al., 2014; Secundo et al., 2015; Ramirez-Córcoles et al., 2016). There have correspondingly
been various initiatives implemented in relation to measuring HEIs' IC. Among these, we can
highlight the models of IC reporting for Austrian universities (Leitner et al., 2001; Leitner, 2004);
Observatory of European Universities (OEU) (Sánchez and Elena, 2006); ICU Report (Sánchez
et al., 2009); Analytic hierarchy process (Lee, 2010); Fuzzy expert system (FES)
(Veltri et al., 2014); IC model for universities (Leitner et al., 2014); Intellectual capital maturity
model (ICMM) (Secundo et al., 2015); as well as the studies by Ramírez-Córcoles et al. (2012),
Ramírez-Córcoles et al. (2013), Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo (2014), among others.
JIC There have been diverse and different categorizations of OIC over time. However, the
20.3 tripartite classification is the one most commonly applied in the leading literature, as
recognized by various authors (eg Leitner, 2004; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Sánchez et
al., 2009; Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles and
Gordillo, 2014). This triad brings together human capital, structural capital and relational capital.
The literature provides various methods to identify, measure, interpret and evaluate the
362 respective components of OIC in HEIs. However, we find that all these authors consider the
components of human capital, structural capital and relational capital, with the exception of
the model developed by Leitner et al. (2014), which also considers process capital.
The literature review demonstrates that a growing number of organizations release their
IC reports, but as Bezhani (2010) highlights, the still limited number of reports does not
enable analysis that might result in statistical generalizations or the identification of trends.
Comparisons are thus not possible and there is a need to draft a core group of indicators to
enable comparisons among different organizations, in this specific case, among the HEIs of
different countries, and also to develop measurement indicators appropriate to each type of
organization (eg focusing on teaching, research, entrepreneurship, innovation and the
transfer of technology and knowledge).
Leitner et al. (2014) mention how the different components of IC may take on different
meanings and roles depending on the type of HEI, thus triggering the need to consider not
only the type of HEI, but also its different stakeholders, given that their needs for information
about intangible assets and IC are different. The same authors highlight that for each HEI,
there should be a set of indicators that respond to the needs of management, and therefore,
circumscribed to that particular institution; subsequently, a second set of indicators specific
to higher education and the different fields of the respective faculties and departments; and,
finally, shared indicators common to all HEIs.
According to the literature, human capital can be measured according to the typology (eg
Leitner and Warden, 2004; Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013;
Leitner et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015), capabilities and
competences (eg Leitner and Warden, 2004; Lee, 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012,
2013; Veltri et al., 2014), efficiency (eg Sánchez et al., 2009 ; Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-
Córcoles et al., 2013), and the training of all staff (eg Leitner and Warden, 2004; Lee, 2010;
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Leitner et al., 2014) students and alumni (eg Sánchez et al.,
2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015).
In relation to structural capital, it can be stated that the majority of indicators are divided
into two types of capital: organizational capital (eg Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013;
Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015), made up of structures, academic and
research structures (eg Sánchez et al., 2009; Lee, 2010), organizational structures (eg Lee,
2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012), financial/budgetary structures (eg
Leitner and Warden, 2004), innovation and strategic development structures (eg Secundo et
al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Veltri et al., 2014); and technological capital (eg
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015), in
the form of infrastructures and equipment, (eg Sánchez et al., 2009) innovation and R&D
activities (eg Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012) .
In what concerns relational capital, it can be measured through areas of action that span
the different political, social, cultural and environmental (internal and external) commitments
(eg Leitner and Warden, 2004; Lee, 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles
et al., 2013; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015); external cooperation/
collaboration (external financial support, partnerships with other HEIs and public/private
organizations, signing of contracts) (eg Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2009;
Lee, 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Leitner et al., 2014); development of
networks (digital, education and research networks) (eg Secundo et al., 2010; Leitner et al., 2014; Veltriet
teaching efficiency (eg Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Intellectual
Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014); image and public understanding of science (eg capital of HEIs Ramírez-
Córcoles et al., 2012; Leitner et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano,
2015); relations with the external environment (including international, academic,
institutional and research dimensions) (eg Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al.,
2009; Lee, 2010; Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012 ; Ramírez-Córcoles
and Gordillo, 2014; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Veltri et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles 363
and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015); and knowledge transfer (through setting up a friendly
framework for the creation of academic spin-offs producing knowledge, technology and qualified human resources) (e
Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Leitner
et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015).
4.2 Case study approach

This item deploys a case study approach as deemed appropriate whenever researchers seek to
carry out holistic and in-depth investigation of complex phenomena (Yin, 1994), as is the case
when trying to explore the HEIs' organizational IC (Mouritsen, 2006; Veltri and Silvestri, 2015).
In order to ensure a diversified sample able to provide the scope for comparison and thereby
enabling further theoretical development (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), we performed a multiple
exploratory case study involving the selection of four different HEIs. The HEIs considered are:
the University of Lisbon (HEIs1); the University of Porto (HEIs2), New University of Lisbon
(HEIs3) and the Polytechnic Institute of Porto (HEIs4). The choice of these HEIs reflects two
factors: having IC-related scorecards in their strategic plans and/or annual activity reports for
2015; their relevance in terms of their total student numbers in the universe of Portuguese state
HEIs according to data collected from the website of the DGEEC – the General Directorate of
Education and Science Statistics[2] for the 2015–2016 academic year.
The criterion used to select these four HEIs was the size of their student population, as they
are four of the largest Portuguese HEIs, accounting for 39 per cent of all students in state higher
education in Portugal. In addition, these four HEIs provide the elements of planning and
respective scorecards that allow the proposal of indicators and subsequent prospective analysis,
also highlighting that for some institutions that information was not structured in a suitable way
for this analysis to be viable.
In order to prioritize the IC indicators, the proposed methodological structure contains three
different stages: in Stage 1, the case file for each particular HEI under study is produced, taking
into consideration their Strategic Plans and/or Activity Reports published for the 2015 financial
year . With this purpose and for greater systematic consistency, we considered five columns for
these case files, specifically: the BSC perspective; strategic objectives; specific objectives;
identification code (HEIs/perspective/Sequential no.) of each indicator; and the measurement
indicators. As regards the BSC perspectives, following analysis of all the documents, we decided
to opt for a subdivision incorporating four perspectives: financing; resources; processes; and
students. The first stage aims to compare the indicators reported for all of the documents
analyzed, systematically organizing and comparing them with the indicators previously identified
in the literature, taking into account the goal of ascertaining the most significant indicators; in
Stage 2, within the framework of analyzing their applicability and the effective relevance of the
measuring process, analysis focuses on identifying any gaps and shortcomings in the importance
of the individual indicators and their levels of implementation, through carrying out an interview
with a fixed script and applying a questionnaire to members of the board/senior management in
each of the four HEIs, who also contributed towards the processes of drafting the Strategic Plans
and Activity Reports, in order to determine the importance of each indicator. Choosing the
methodological instrument of the interview is justified by
JIC wanting to avoid the possibility of the responses of those involved being influenced by the others, rather
20.3 than what could occur if using alternatives such as the focus group and participant observations; and in
Stage 3, the constant influence/dependence of the indicators in the matrix generated through application
of the MICMAC method is assessed.
4.2.1 Stage 1: producing the case file. After producing the case files, we can report that the resources
perspective and the processes perspective are common to all. As regards the total number of indicators
364 included, this varies depending on the institution with the four HEIs providing a collective total of 96
indicators, oscillating between 26 (the maximum) and 23 (the minimum) indicators per institution. Figure
2 presents a bar chart showing the total number of indicators per perspective, while Figure 3 shows the
distribution of perspectives and their respective indicators for each HEI.
After grouping all the indicators, whether by type of capital (human, structural and relational) or by
perspective, taking into consideration the results returned by the measurement indicators incorporated in
the HEI SCCs in the multiple case study, we removed repeated indicators and regrouped those indicators
that, irrespective of their differences, measure the same concept. Additionally, we excluded certain
specific indicators as they did not appear either suitably relevant or necessary to evaluate the IC of HEIs.
Table I details the SCC implemented for the IC of HEIs and demonstrates the results of reducing the
number of indicators from 96 to 52.
4.2.2 Stage 2: drafting and applying the questionnaire, and categorizing the indicators.
This stage consists of the following: holding an interview with members of the board/senior management
of the selected HEIs with the objective of defining and categorizing the key indicators presented in the
Scorecard featured in Table I after drafting a script and a questionnaire made up of both open and closed
questions; and analysis of the results through selection and categorization of the levels of importance of
the data gathered from the field research.
Sample definition. As regards the members selected for interview, we contacted the director(s)/
dean(s) of HEI1, HEI2, HEI3 and HEI4. Selection of these interviewees involved ascertaining their direct
involvement in drafting processes for the Strategic Plans and Activity Reports of their respective
institutions. The first contact took place via telephone in February 2017. Subsequently, and without any
need to carry out in-person interviews, we sent out the Script and Questionnaire via e-mail to the
respective director/dean and gathered responses in the same way.
Results obtained. For the closed questions, applying a scale of 1 to 7, (1 ¼ not important; 7 ¼
extremely important), we obtained the average for each indicator, with these then subject to the following
classification: average ¼ 1 and o3.50 unimportant (PI); average ÿ 3.5 and o5 averagely important (MI);
average ÿ 5 and o6.5 important (I); average ÿ6.5 and ¼ 7 extremely important (EI). This returned a total
of 18 results classified as EI (SICH5, SICH6, SICH10, SICH12, ECE17, ECE18, ECE25, SECR30,
SECR31, SECR33, SECR34, SECR35, SECR40, SECR41, SECR43, SECR45, ARECH47 and
ARECH50) and two averagely important (SICH13 and SICH15) with the remainder deemed important
with no factor receiving the classification of unimportant.
4.2.3 Stage 3: prospective strategic analysis through the MICMAC methodology. To deepen the
analysis detailed above, we developed an analytical matrix with the indicators previously identified and
selected, for example “MI”, “I” and “EI”, based on the MICMAC methodology. This phase consists of
identifying the key indicators, ie those essential to develop the system. This identification primarily takes
place through direct classification and, subsequently, through indirect classification – the aforementioned
MICMAC, ie “Matrix of Crossed Impacts – Multiplications Applied to a Classification”. This indirect
classification stems from elevating the initial matrix by the corresponding power (Godet and Durance,
2011).
Intellectual
Perspective 4 Students 1
capital of HEIs
Perspective 3 Processes 59
Perspective 2 Resources 31 365
Perspective 1 Financial 5 Figure 2.

Counting the
indicators for each
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
perspective
HEI4
Perspective 2 Resources 12
Perspective 1 Financial 2
HEI3
HEI2
Perspective 3 Processes twenty
HEI1
Perspective 2 Resources 3 Figure 3.

Distribution of the
perspectives and their
0 5 10 fifteen twenty
respective indicators
per HEI
According to the same authors, the matrix needs to be completed by more than one
participant and also requires thorough knowledge of the system under analysis. Therefore,
the direct impact matrix remains upon a direct influence matrix and follows a triangulation
approach counting on the participation of three researchers who each complete the matrix
separately. Each researcher classified the impact of the indicators in a column over the
aligned indicators, ruling out the occurrence of any impact on themselves. To this end, we
deployed the following scale: 0¼ no impact; 1¼ small impact; 2¼ moderate impact; 3¼
strong impact; and P ¼ potential impact. In order to form the final direct impact matrix, this
incorporated the factors most cited by the three participants (mode). Where there were
divergences and differences, the three researchers discussed and analyzed the case until reaching a consensus.
According to Godet and Durance (2011), prospective analysis is a pre-active and pro-
active anticipatory tool that clarifies the present action based on the possible and desirable
future vision. Alternatively expressed, having a prospective attitude means controlling the
expected change (being pre-active), and causing a desired change
JIC Indicator code (perspective/

20.3 IC/sequential no.)a indicator
Financial perspective
Staff
FCH1 Ratio: expenditure on staff in relation to total expenditure
Technology
366 FCE2 Ratio: expenditure on IT and communication in relation to total expenditure
R&D activities
FCE3 Ratio: expenditure on scientific journals in relation to total R&D expenditure
FCE4 Ratio: funding for third parties (public and private) for R&D in relation to total
financing
Internal stakeholder perspective

Staff
SICH5 Capacity for leadership
SICH6 Capacity for team working
SICH7 Average age of staff (lecturers and researchers, administrative staff)
SICH8 Total no. of staff/researchers/administrative staff by gender
Lecturers and researchers
SICH9 Total ratio of lecturers/researchers per student
SICH10 Academic and professional qualifications of lecturers/researchers
Administrative staff
SICH11 Academic and professional qualifications of administrative staff
Students
SICH12 Total ratio of doctoral, master's and undergraduate degree students in relation
to the total no. of students
SICH13 Total no. of students
SICH14 No. of new students enrolled in the current academic year
SICH15 No. of student complaints
Alumni
SICH16 No. registered alumni (national and international)
Structural perspective
Organizational capital
ECE17 Mission, vision and values, strategic and operational processes
ECE18 Management and organization of teaching activities (academic networks,
international staff exchange programs, teaching incentives, innovation in
education provision, teaching programs in different languages, among others)
ECE19 Management and organization of R&D activities (strategic planning of R&D
activities, internal and external communication of research results, efficient
management of research projects, incentives for research, theses defended,
incentives for scientific outputs, dynamics of multidisciplinary research groups,
R&D activities with cross-fertilization among scientific fields, research
commissioned by industry, among others)
ECE20 Total no. of citations of publications by teaching and research staff
ECE21 Total no. of publications authored and co-authored, by scientific field
ECE22 Support installations and material resources (no. of libraries, no. of books
available in the library, no. of computers per academic/student/administrative
staff, among others)
ECE23 No. of scientific, cultural and social events organized
ECE24 No. of national/international awards and prizes received
ECE25 No. of evaluation, qualification, accreditation and external certification processes
Technological capital
ECE26 No. of research/incubation and laboratory infrastructures
ECE27 No. of IT places
Table I.
IC scorecard for HEIs (continued)
Intellectual
Indicator code (perspective/
IC/sequential no.)a indicator capital of HEIs
External stakeholder perspective

Political, social, cultural and environmental commitments
SECR28 % of students with special needs
SECR29 Ecological footprint 367
Cooperation/external collaboration
SECR30 Total no of cooperation contracts/agreements/protocols existing (teaching/
research) with public and private and national and international organizations
Teaching efficiency
SECR31 % of academic dropouts
SECR32 % of graduates (undergraduate, master's and doctoral degrees)
Image
SECR33 Doctoral degree programs with official mention of quality
SECR34 Image/opinion/reputation of HEIs (society, media, among others) at the regional,
national and international levels
Relations with the exterior
SECR35 No. of lecturers/researchers attending international conferences
SECR36 No. of company internships undertaken by students
SECR37 Relations with society (no. of positions on public management/governance/civic
participation/consultancy/and accreditation entities and social forums or
specialist negotiation and/or discussion bodies)
SECR38 Students satisfaction (with studies, services, infrastructures, among others)
SECR39 Existence and management of evaluation processes for the satisfaction of
employers with graduate training and education
SECR40 No. of international students (undergraduate, master's and doctoral degrees)
and on post-graduate programs
SECR41 No. of guest international speakers per learning programs
SECR42 No. of countries with ongoing development collaboration with the HEIs
SECR43 % of lecturers/researchers who obtained their PhDs in other institutions
SECR44 % of lecturers/researchers with positions at scientific journals, scientific panels,
among others
SECR45 % of students enrolled in their first option in relation to the total no. of places on
offer
SECR46 Waiting time before graduates secure their first job
Learning, renovation and entrepreneurship perspective

Lecturers and researchers
ARECH47 No. of lecturers with career aggregation
ARECH48 No. of teaching/research missions by lecturers/researchers in international
institutions
Administrative staff
ARECH49 No. of hours of training attended by administrative staff
R&D activities
ARECH50 No. of participations in research projects
ARECE51 Intellectual property (no. of national and international patents; brands; models
of utility; prototypes; copyrights, No. of licenses; among others)
ARECR52 No. of academic spin-offs launched annually
to
Notes: F: financial; SI: internal stakeholders; E: structural; SE: external stakeholders; ARE: learning,
renovation and entrepreneurship; CH: human capital; CE: structural capital (organizational or process); CR:
relational capital; 1, …, 52: sequential number attributed to each indicator
Source: Own elaboration Table I.
(being pro-active). As a social science subject (Fierro, 2015), and despite the scarcity of
studies in the literature using prospective analysis in the HEI context, we highlight
some studies on IC that have already deployed this approach (Fried and Linss, 2005), and
more specifically with HEIs (Elena-Pérez et al., 2011; Serna, 2013; Munar et al., 2014).
JIC Elena-Perez et al. (2011) approach the specificities of the Romanian higher education
20.3 system, stating the possibility of combining foresight techniques and IC management, as
benchmarking tools for ensuring participative strategic management in HEIs.
Serna (2013) addresses the concepts of foresight and strategic management of
knowledge and their role in developing research groups integrated into the Colombian HEIs.
In this line of action, the author advocates that foresight should be associated with specific
368 actions within systems of competitive intelligence and technology surveillance, for identifying
the most relevant variables for developing the research groups, calling also for the
incorporation of strategic management of technology, innovation and knowledge within
those groups, in the Colombian context.
Munar et al. (2014) provide an attempt to measure IC (considering as in the current
analysis, the same three main components, namely: human capital; structural capital; and
relational capital) at the university level, presenting an innovative application to the case of
the University of Atacama, located in Chile. For this purpose, the authors develop a
prospective analytical exercise for a ten years period ahead, using the Delphi methodology,
which was complemented by the use of a qualitative profiling approach, considering a series
of exogenous variables.
The strategic prospective analysis now presented is different from the three studies
previously mentioned, since it is based on a MICMAC approach that consists of the design
and subsequent application of impact matrices, which list the items generating impacts and
their connections with each other, before returning estimates of the strength of the impact
of each item in terms of each remaining variable included in the respective prospective
analytical exercise. The MICMAC method attempts to quantify the importance of each item
impacting within a determined system (Fried and Linss, 2005). With the assistance of easy
to understand tables and graphs, each item displays an indicator of influence and an
indicator of dependence with the positioning of the variable or indicator in the plan enabling
the differentiation between five particular types of variable (Godet and Durance, 2011) , as set out in Figu
According to Godet and Durance (2011), the input variables (Zone 1) are highly influential
and with low levels of dependence, primarily considered as explanatory variables for the
system under study, and should therefore be subject to priority actions in that they condition
the prevailing dynamics in the system. The intermediate variables (Zone 2) are
simultaneously very influential, very dependent and thus unstable. The resulting variables
(Zone 3) exert little influence and are very dependent. The evolution derives from the
consequences of the impacts generated by other items. The excluded variables (Zone 4)
are those susceptible to exclusion on the grounds of reporting low levels of both dependence
and influence, especially the input and intermediate variables. The clustered variables (Zone
5) do not display any defined characteristics in terms of either their influence or their
dependence and hence we may reach conclusions about their role in the system and are
thus deemed worthy of continued consideration.
5. Presentation and analysis of results Based

on the results from completion of the MICMAC matrix, Figure 5 displays the four quadrants
in the influence/dependence matrix, together with a general overview of the direct influences
of the respective indicators in Figure 6.
According to Figure 5, in Zone 1, we encounter the input indicators, also designated power
indicators. These are considered the key factors of the HEI IC system, and are hence
influential indicators. These indicators have the greatest importance, given their power to
influence the main indicators throughout all of the system and reflect little or no dependence
on the other indicators. Thus, such indicators need to be taken into consideration for the
success of any prospective strategic plans for the IC of HEIs. Only one indicator emerged in
influence Intellectual
capital of HEIs
1 2 369
Input Variables Intermediate Variables
5
Clustered Variables
Influence
Average
3
Resulting Variables
4
Excluded Variables
Figure 4.
Different types of
Average Dependence Dependence variables for influence
and dependence
Source: Godet and Durance (2011, p. 65)
Direct influence/dependence map

SECR34
SECR38
ECE19
SICH15 SICH13
SECR42 SICH12
SICH14 ECE18
SECR33
influence
ECE24
SECR30
SECR32 ECE25
SECR40 ARECH50
SECR44
ECE26
SECR35 SECR37 SECR36
ECE27 ECE21
ARECE51 ECE23
SECR31 SECR46
ARECH48 ECE20
SECR41 ECE17
© LFSO-EDITA-MIC MAC
SICH9
SICH6
ARECH47
ARECR52 ECE22 SICH10
SICH16 FCH1
SICH11 FCE3 FCE4
SECR43 SECR39
SECR45 SICH5 Figure 5.

ARECH49 FCE2
SICH8 Levels of direct
SECR28 SECR29 SICH7 influence and
Dependence dependence of the
indicators
JIC Direct influence graph

20.3 SECR40 ECE24 SICH12
SICH11
SECR33
ECE22
ECE23 SECR31
ARECH49 SECR44
ECE25 SICH10
370 SICH13
SECR32 SICH9 FCE2

FCH1 SICH5 SICH6
SICH14
ARECH50 SECR37
SECR42 SECR29
ECE17
ECE19 ARECR51
SECR41 FCE4
SECR35 SICH8
© LFSOR-EPITA-MICMAC
ECE27 ARECR52
SICH15
ARECH47
SECR46 ARECH48 SECR38 SECR30 SECR45 SECR36
ECE21 ECE26 FCE3

ECE18 SECR34
SECR39
Figure 6.
Graph of the direct
indicator influences
Note: The choice of the 25 per cent option stems from guaranteeing the visibility of the distribution
(25 per cent) within
the system
and dispersion of the networks of influence as well as the concentrations or clusters in the network
this zone, SECR38. This indicator has a direct influence on the behaviors of the group in
which it falls and therefore has to be considered in any potentially successful prospective
strategic planning (González-Cabo et al., 2017).
In Zone 2 (upper right quadrant), the intermediate or conflict indicators span the core
indicators or the targets incorporated in the system. These indicators have high and average
dependence and high and average levels of influence. Every action applied to them will
simultaneously generate repercussions for the other variables and retroactive effects on them,
profoundly shaping the overall dynamics prevailing in the system (Godet and Durance, 2011).
Therefore, according to González-Cabo et al. (2017), these indicators show the strategic
objectives, which require planning in accordance with the IC of HEIs with consequences for
management plans; with these indicators also needing constant monitoring and surveying.
Only one indicator was included in this zone, SECR34.
Zone 3, (lower right quadrant), contains the resulting indicators, which arise from iteration
of the other indicators in the system, showing a low level of influence but high dependence.
However, depending on the means of their influence, there may be diverse impacts on other
variables and hence the latter must be approached with care (Tiwari, 2013).
Table II sets out the seven indicators included in this zone.
Zone 4, (lower left quadrant), contains the exclusion indicators, also referred to as
autonomous, given that they may or may not be subject to exclusion. Their role within the
system under study has little or no dependence on the other indicators and little or no influence.
This type of indicator is at the service of the system as a whole and thus HEI decision makers
have to decide whether to include them in their development plans as potential factors to
strengthen the main indicators or exclude them from any scorecard. González-Cabo et al.
(2017) state that this type of item almost always represents competitive advantages for the
system and is eligible for exploration and operational implementation in keeping with the
characteristics of each organization/institution. Table II lists the 23 indicators included in this zone.
Intellectual
Input indicators Intermediate indicators Resulting indicators Exclusion indicators Clustered indicators
capital of HEIs
SECR38 SECR34 FCH1 FCE3 FCE4
FCE2 SICH6 SICH7
SICH5 SICH8 SICH9
SICH10 SICH11 SICH12
ECE17 SICH16 SICH13
ECE25 ECE22 SICH14 371
ARECH47 ECE23 SICH15
ECE27 ECE18
SECR28 ECE19
SECR29 ECE20
SECR31 ECE21
SECR35 ECE24
SECR36 ECE26
SECR39 SECR30
SECR41 SECR32
SECR43 SECR33
SECR44 SECR37
SECR45 SECR40
SECR46 SECR42
ARECH48 ARECH50
ARECH49
Table II.
ARECE51 Distribution of HEI
ARECR52 scorecards indicators
Source: Own elaboration by zones
Zone 5 features all the other indicators, thus, the clustered indicators and those that lack any
defined characteristics in terms of their influence and dependence enabling any conclusions
about the role they play in the system, and they should therefore remain. Table II presents
the 20 indicators included in this zone.
Figure 6 features only those indicators with the greatest direct influence on the system.
According to Godet (1994), analysis exclusively focusing on the direct impact falls short as this
fails to reveal the hidden indicators influencing the issues under study in a camouflaged
fashion. Therefore, the same author suggests extending the analysis to include the indirect
impact of the indicators. This requires comparison of the hierarchy of the indicators in the
indirect classification, enabling confirmation of the importance of some indicators and also
revealing certain indicators that, due to their indirect actions, perform an important role
irrespective of not having previously been subject to identification through the direct
classification. consequently, comparison between the direct and the indirect classifications
might associate a different timeframe for each of these classifications: the direct classification
results from interactions in the short- and medium-term relationships and with their temporal
horizons generally corresponding to less than a decade; and the indirect classification integrations
the chain reactions that require longer timeframes, extending to between 10 and 15 years.
Observation of Figure 7, showing the evolution of influence, reveals a change in the
positioning of some indicators, when comparing analysis of the direct and indirect influence.
Figure 8 shows the changes in the indicators in a chart of the direct/indirect displacements.
Furthermore, also in accordance with that stipulated by Godet (1994), these changes require
incorporating medium- and long-term timeframes in activity and/or development plans.
As for the indirect analysis, many variables have fairly similar positions even when
changes in the other variables reveal hidden indicators or key hidden influences. Taking
into account the content of the prospective analysis, in comparative terms, Figures 7 and 8,
in Table III systematically present the indicators with a rise equal to or greater than three
JIC Classify variables according to their influences

Rank Variable Variable
20.3
1 34 – SECR34 34 – SECR34
2 38 – SECR38 38 – SECR38
3 19 – ECE19 13 – SICH13
4 13 – SICH13 14 – SICH14
5 15 – SICH15 12 – SICH12
6 42 – SECR42 42 – SECR42
372 7 12 – SICH12 33 – SECR33
8 14 – SICH14 15 – SICH15
9 18 – ECE18 32 – SECR32
10 33 – SECR33 30 – SECR30
eleven 30 – SECR30 40 – SECR40
12 24 – ECE24 19 – ECE19
13 40 – SECR40 37 – SECR37
14 32 – SECR32 36 – SECR36
fifteen 25 – ECE25 24 – ECE24
16 37 – SECR37 50 – ARECH50
17 50 – ARECH50 18 – ECE18
18 26 – ECE26 41 – SECR41
19 21 – ECE21 31 – SECR31
twenty 35 – SECR35 26 – SECR26
twenty-one 36 – SECR36 35 – SECR35
22 51 – ARECE51 25 – ECE25
23 20 – ECE20 27 – ECE27
24 27 – ECE27 51 – ARECE51
25 23 – ECE23 16 – SICH16
26 41 – SECR41 44 – SECR44
27 31 – SECR31 21 – ECE21
28 46 – SECR46 46 – SECR46
29 48 – ARECH48 6 – SICH6
30 6 – SICH6 10 – SICH10
31 17 – ECE17 9 – SICH9
32 44 – SECR44 45 – SECR45
33 10 – SICH10 52 – ARECH52
3. 4 22 – ECE22 20 – ECE20
35 1 – FCH1 23 – ECE23
36 9 – SICH9 48 – ARECH48
37 52 – ARECR52 22 – ECE22
38 47 – ARECH47 47 – ARECH47
39 16 – SICH16 1 – FCH1
40 3 – FCE3 3 – ECE3
41 4 – FCE4 4 – ECE4
42 11 – SICH11 5 – SICH5
43 45 – SECR45 17 – ECE17
44 39 – SECR39 29 – SECR29
Four. Five 43 – SECR43 2 – FCE2
46 49 – ARECH49 39 – SECR39
47 2 – FCE2 11 – SICH11
48 5 – SICH5 8 – SICH8
Figure 7. 49 8 – SICH8 43 – SECR43
Classification of the fifty 29 – SECR29 49 – ARECH49
indicator influences in 51 7 – SICH7 29 – SECR28
direct terms vs 52 28 – SECR28 7 – SICH7
indirect terms
positions in the influence ranking as well as those indicators that, while not having
reached this level, however still show changes in their positioning in the matrix zone.
Table III shows how the rises in the influence ranking highlight those indicators
interrelated with human capital and relational capital. Despite some reporting sharp rises,
Displacement map: direct/indirect Intellectual

SECR34
SECR38
capital of HEIs
SICH13
ECE19
373
ECE26 SICH12
SECR42 SICH15
SECR37 ECE27
SICH14 ECE18
influence
SECR30 ECE24
SECR33
SECR32
SECR40 ECE25
ARECE51 ECE21
SECR35 ARECH50
ECE20
SECR36
ARECH48 SECR41 ECE23
ECE17
ARECR52 SECR31
SICH9
SECR44 SICH6 ARECH47
ECE22 SICH10 FCH1
SICH16
SICH11 FCE3
ARECH49 SECR39
SECR28 SECR45 SECR46 FCE4
SECR43 SICH5
SICH8
FCE2
Figure 8.
SECR29
SICH7 Map of the direct vs
Dependence indirect indicator
displacements
Indicators Zone (Direct ÿ Indirect) Rise in position
FCE2 – 3
FCE3 4ÿ5 0
SICH5 – 6
SICH9 5ÿ3 5
SICH10 – 3
SICH12 5ÿ15 2
SICH13 ÿ15ÿ 1
SICH14 1 4
SICH16 – 14
ECE21 5ÿ4 (Down 8)
SECR29 – 6
SECR31 4ÿ5 8
SECR32 – 5
SECR33 – 3
– Table III.
SECR36 7
– Indicators with rises
SECR37 3
in the influence
SECR41 4ÿ5 8
– ranking of equal to or
SECR44 7
– greater than three
SECR45 eleven
–
positions and/or
ARECR52 4
changes in the matrix
Source: Own elaboration positioning
this did not prove sufficient for these indicators to change their position in the matrix
zone, as is the case of the “No. of registered alumni (national and international)”, which
rose 14 positions in relation to its direct influence. As regards those changing zones,
this identified three indicators: “Total ratio of PhD, master and undergraduate degree
students in relation to the total no. of students”; “Absolutely no. of students”; “Absolutely no. of new
students accepted in the current academic year”; and correspondingly all interrelated with
human capital, in particular, with students. Thus, these indicators must be taken into
JIC consideration as in future scenarios (in the medium and long term), they may become determinant for
20.3 evolution of the HEI IC system, ie influencers, and deserving particular attention as they may feasibly in
the future take on leading roles in the respective system in conjunction with “Satisfaction of students (with
studies, services, infrastructure, among others)”, which already falls into Zone 1 and maintains this
position. We also highlight three other indicators that leave the exclusion zone and enter the clustered
zone. These are “% of expenditure on scientific journals/total expenditure on R&D activities”, “% of
374 academic drop-out” and “No. of guest international speakers per learning programme”.
Therefore, these indicators deserve inclusion among the indicators commonly incorporated in HEI
scorecards.
According to the results obtained from the direct and indirect analysis, we can distribute the indicators
into two groups: Group 1 common indicators for inclusion in HEI scorecards.
This contains the indicators that feature in Zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the MICMAC Matrix of direct impacts
plus the three indicators that move from Zone 4 to Zone 5 following the analysis of indirect impacts,
making up a total of 32 items; and Group 2: specific indicators that require individual analysis by the
managers of each HEI in order to ascertain whether or not these deserve inclusion in the system, with a
total of 20 indicators.
Taking the above into consideration, Table IV sets out the final proposal of the 32 common indicators
found through prospective MICMAC analysis, first and foremost grouped by the type of IC, thus, human
capital, structural capital and relational capital, and subsequently by their level of importance attributed in
accordance with the classifications provided by the directors of the four HEIs participating in the study
(EI, important and moderately important).
As a result of the assessment presented above in Table IV, in this research about the main
components of the HEIs' organizational IC, it is revealed the set of EI indicators, which are those related
with:
(1) The human capital: leadership capacity; academic and professional qualifications of lecturers/
researchers; total ratio of PhD, master and undergraduate degree students in relation to the total
no. of students; number of lecturers with habilitation; number of participations in research projects.
(2) The structural capital: mission, vision and values, strategic and operational processes; management
and organization of teaching activities (academic networks, international staff exchange schemes,
incentives for teaching, innovation in the provision of education, teaching programs in different
languages, among others); number of external evaluation, qualification, accreditation and
certification processes.
(3) The relational capital: total number of existing contracts/agreements for cooperation/ protocols
(teaching/research) with public and private, national and international organizations; percentage
of academic drop-out; PhD degree programs with official mention of quality; image/opinion/
reputation of HEIs (society, media, among others) at the regional, national and international
levels; number of international students (undergraduate, master and PhD degrees) and on post-
graduate programs; number of guest international speakers per learning programme.
6. Conclusions, implications and limitations of the study Based on the

several indicators found and recommended in the literature review, after a multiple case study, conducted
in four Portuguese HEIs, 52 indicators were determined (see Table I). After a prospective analysis using
MICMAC software, these 52 indicators were divided by zones, according to their importance and
distribution in a prospective view, identifying 29 common indicators (input indicators, intermediate
indicators, resultant indicators and clustered indicators), which should be part of the development plans
of the
Indicator
Intellectual
I.C. code Common indicators Classification capital of HEIs
Human SICH5 Leadership capacity EI
capital SICH10 Academic and professional qualifications of lecturers/researchers SICH12 Total
ratio of doctoral, master's and undergraduate degree students in relation to the total no. of
students ARECH47 No. of lecturers with
career aggregation ARECH50 No. of participations in 375
research projects FCH1 Ratio: expenditure on staff in relation
to total expenditure SICH7 Average age of staff (lecturers and researchers, Yo
administrative staff)
SICH9 % of lecturers/researchers/total students (average of lecturers/researchers per
student)
SICH14 No. of new students accepted in the current academic year SICH13 Total
no. of students SICH15 No. of student MY
complaints ECE17 Mission, vision and
Structural values, strategic and operational processes ECE18 Management and organization of EI
capital teaching activities (academic networks, international staff exchange schemes, incentives for
teaching, innovation in the provision of education, teaching programs in different
languages, among others)
ECE25 No. of external evaluation, qualification, accreditation and certification processes
FCE2 Ratio: expenditure on IT and communication in relation to total expenditure Yo
FCE3 Ratio: expenditure on scientific journals in relation to total R&D expenditure
FCE4 Ratio: third party (public and private) funding for R&D in relation to total financing
ECE19 Management and organization of R&D activities (strategic planning of

R&D activities, internal and external communication of research results, efficient
management of research projects, incentives for research, theses defended,
incentives for scientific production, dynamics of multidisciplinary
research groups, R&D activities with cross-fertilization among scientific fields,
research commissioned by industry, among others)
ECE20 Total no. of citations of publications by lecturers and researchers ECE21 Total no.
of publications authored and co-authored by scientific field ECE24 No. of national/international
awards received ECE26 No. of research infrastructures/incubators
and laboratories SECR30 Total no. of existing contracts/agreements for cooperation/
Relational protocols EI
capital (teaching/research) with public and private, national and international organizations
SECR31% of school abandoning

SECR33 Doctoral degree programs with official mention of quality
SECR34 Image/opinion/reputation of HEIs (society, media, among others) at the regional,
national and international levels
SECR40 No. of international students (undergraduate, master's and doctoral
degrees) and on post-graduate programs
SECR41 No. of guest international speakers per learning programme.
SECR32 % of graduates (undergraduate, master's and doctoral degrees) Yo
SECR37 Relationships with society (no. of positions held on management/

governance bodies/civic participation/consultancies/accreditation/social or specialist
forums for negotiation and/or discussion)
SECR38 Student satisfaction (with studies, services, infrastructures, among others)
Table IV.
SECR42 No. of countries with ongoing collaboration with the HEI
Proposed indicators
Notes: EI, extremely important; I, important; MI, moderately important for evaluating the IC of
Source: Own elaboration HEIs
JIC HEIs, that is, of the so-called scorecards; and 23 specific indicators (exclusion indicators), which should
20.3 be analyzed in individual terms and then considered in the elaboration of the development plan according
to the strategic orientation pursued by each HEI (see Table II).
Taking as reference the results obtained in this study, the following highlights are identified:
(1) The indicators deserving greatest attention lie in the field of relational capital: student satisfaction
and HEI image need priority attention and inclusion in activity plans and annual operational
376 plans, given that attracting new students (PhD and master degrees, post-graduate, training and
lifelong qualification trainees in addition to undergraduates) must be integrated into long-term
strategic planning as in the future, indicators reflecting student numbers (ratio: PhD, master and
undergraduate degree students in relation to the total no. of students; total no. of students; total
no. of new students accepted in that academic year) will shape the development of the entire
system.
(2) Long-term strategic plans should also pay particular attention to the other indicators set out in
Table III, especially those that transfer to higher profile zones: the indicators for “ratio: expenditure
on scientific journals in relation to total R&D expenditure”, the “% of academic drop-out” and the
“No. of guest international speakers per learning program” that move from Zone 4 to Zone 5.
Those that while not changing zone still show sharp increases in the direct/indirect influence
ranking, such as “No. of alumni registered (national and international)” and “% of students
enrolled in their first option in relation to the total no. of places available” also need careful
monitoring and attention as their development may be extremely relevant in the future.
(3) Hence, a broader vision of the impact of these indicators on others may provide HEIs with benefits
in the long term. The results of this research are also important for HEIs managers, especially
as regards designing and producing future strategic development and growth plans for HEIs,
using the indicators proposed here, incorporating the vision of stakeholders, within the scope of
drafting a framework of evaluation and shared responsibility, with their indicators subject to
adjustment on an annual basis in a dynamic and contingent approach.
These indicators are directly linked with HEIs' development/growth and require analysis by different
institutions in diverse ways. For example, a university that is currently losing students or not increasing
their number needs to foster a strategy designed to attract new students. In medium- and long-term
development plans, such HEIs need to deploy strategies to attract new national and international
students. However, when these HEIs lack the preparation necessary to receive more students, this
growth might remain conditioned by other internal and external factors such as: the number of lecturers;
the number of classrooms and IT facilities; social infrastructure, accommodation and the socioeconomic
conditions of source student households. Consequently, the number of students has an influence (directly
or indirectly) on other indicators that also deserve consideration in future strategy plans. A university that
already has a large number of students and which, from the outset, does not need strategies designed to
bring in more, should instead focus on the development of other indicators that generate competitive
advantages in relation to their peer institutions, for example, developing research, internationalization
and innovation.
This study applies innovation to the definition of indicators for consideration in IC studies as it follows
a prospective approach with insights capable of making an even greater impact on the future of HEIs
when taking into account analysis of the indirect impacts, as well as the resulting implications , especially
as regards satisfaction and the total number of students at HEIs, as these variables have the greatest
influence on the system.
In terms of policy implications, the design of a formal program for charting, Intellectual
recognizing and monitoring the IC of HEIs is recommended, to enable the setting out of tools capital of
HEIs for future strategic management, both prospective and operational, by these organizations.
This should take into account specific characteristics related to the intangible nature of their resources,
capacities and the competences allocated to the production of intangible knowledge assets. These in
turn need greater monitoring in order to ensure their effective protection, valuation and transfer according
to a new paradigm of open collaboration founded on the IC of nations, organizations and individuals. 377
Joint analysis of those indicators leads to implications regarding the need to design and implement
new public policies, namely: launching transnational cooperation programs involving public and private
organizations; behavioral and emotional programs to combat academic drop-out, promoting integration,
soft skills and behavioral competences, success and employability; creating international PhD programs
with recognized certification and international quality; and designing worldwide student mobility programs.
Adoption of these new public policies is EI to strengthen the three main components of IC in HEIs: human
(HC); structural (SC); and relational (RC) capital.
As reported by Munaret al. (2014) this type of prospective analysis opens a future exploration avenue
about the intangible resources that need further measurement, improvement and certification. In this
sense, bearing in mind the proposal of indicators, the current findings provide a number of managerial
implications, namely: creation of enabling programs for leadership and qualification of lecturers and
researchers; creation of pedagogical training programs; creation of seed capital programs for research
projects; implementation of business process management (BPM) programs and quality certification of
the different processes and procedures of academic management; and creation of a program to assess
satisfaction and strengthen the quality of academic life. These implications for operational management
of HEIs are justified by strengthening HC and SC. However, regarding the latter, the analysis provided
important insights into the need to formally define and dynamically revisit the mission, vision, values,
strategic processes and operational procedures, as a prospective mechanism to anticipate change. As
previously advocated by Serna (2013), the prospective exercises and analyzes need to be connected to
specific actions in systems, with the eventual incorporation of strategic management of technology,
innovation and knowledge within institutions.
The case study approach covering only four Portuguese HEIs might emerge as a limitation of the
study, concerning the generalization of results. However, the indicators used as a reference in drafting
the IC Scorecard for HEIs relate to studies undertaken in diverse countries and covering many different
HEIs, which guarantees a certain level of complementary diversity in the indicators.
The MICMAC method also possesses certain limitations. Because of its qualitative nature, subjectivity
plays a role here and there is no single reading of the results as they stem from the participants'
interpretations. Additionally, the fact that the influence matrix was filled in by three researchers belonging
to the same HEI may emerge as a limitation. However, all participants in this study phase are experts in
HEI management related issues not only due to the managerial roles already held (board members and
deans of faculty) but also due to the various studies already undertaken within this framework with two
participants having already worked and/or carried out an internship at other national and international
institutions and are thus aware of more than one situation.
This suggests that future research on this issue deserves to be expanded for including HEIs from
other countries and in conjunction with the support of experts in managing and running those same HEIs.
Recovering the view of Omran et al. (2014), a classical structural analysis, as a method of extended
analysis to futures, always depends on a small group of participants, not efficient in terms of time, costs
and human resources allocated; being based on a single value, that is, the present knowledge. Thus, a
final recommendation word is
JIC dedicated to policy-makers and managers, who should focus their future endeavors on the
20.3 identification, in prospective terms, of influential and dependent drivers for the components
of the IC that interact with the sustainable performance of HEIs.
notes
1. Entrepreneurship includes indicators of entrepreneurship (eg the academic spin-offs created, etc.)
378
and intra-entrepreneurship (eg innovative capacities of staff, training supplied to staff and by staff, etc.).
2. www.dgeec.mec.pt, consulted on December 20, 2016.
References
Bezhani, I. (2010), “Intellectual capital reporting at UK universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.
11 No. 2, pp. 179-207.
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76, available at: http://doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/00251749810204142
Chatterton, P. and Goddard, J. (2000), “The response of higher education institutions to regional needs”,
European Journal of Education, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 475-496.
Chevaillier, T. (2002), “Higher education and its clients: institutional responses to changes in
demand and in environment”, Higher Education, Vol. 44 Nos 3/4, pp. 303-308, available
at: http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019802608400
Cong, X. and Pandya, KV (2003), “Issues of knowledge management in the public sector”, Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 25-33.
Daniels, H. and Noordhuis, H. (2005), “Project selection based on intellectual capital scorecards”,
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-32, available
at: http://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.231
Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Drucker, J. (2015), “Reconsidering the regional economic development impacts of higher education
institutions in the United States”, Regional Studies, January, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 1185-1202,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.986083
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, MS (1997), “Intellectual capital: realizing your company's true value by
finding its hidden brainpower”, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Elena-Pérez, S., Saritas, O., Pook, K. and Warden, C. (2011), “Ready for the future? Universities'
capabilities to strategically manage their intellectual capital”, Foresight, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp.
31-48, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14636681111126238
European Commission (2003), “The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge”,
Communication from the Commission of 5 February, available at : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/PT/TXT/ ?uri=URISERV:c11067
European Commission (2006), “RICARDIS: reporting intellectual capital to augment research,
development and innovation in SMEs,” available at : http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/
pdf/download_en/2006-2977_web1 .pdf
European Commission (2010), Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.
COM (2010) 2020 Final, CEC, Brussels.
Fierro, GG (2015), “Strategic prospective methodology to explore sustainable futures”, Journal of
Modern Accounting and Auditing, Vol. 11 No. 11, pp. 606-614, available at: http://doi.org/
10.17265/1548-6583/2015.11.005
Fried, A. and Linss, V. (2005), “Towards an advanced impact analysis of intangible resources in
organizations (BWL IX No. 2)”, papers and preprints of the Department of Innovation Research
and Sustainable Resource Management, Chemnitz.
Godet, M. (1979), “The crisis in forecasting and the emergence of the 'prospective' approach”, in Pearse, JD and Lennon, Intellectual
HK (Eds), With case studies in Energy and Air Transport, Pergamon Press, New York , NY, pp. 1-136.
capital of HEIs
Godet, M. (1994), From Anticipation to Action, UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Godet, M. and Durance, P. (2011), A Prospectiva Estratética, UNESCO – Ornanização das Nações Unidas para a
Educação, a Ciência ea Cultura, Paris, available at: http://pt.laprospective.fr/dyn/ traductions /contents/findunod-
godet-durance-ext-vpt.pdf 379
González-Cabo, V., Murgueitio, M., Cruz Caicedo, LF, Burbano-Vallejo, EL and Moreno, E. (2017),
“Application of structural analysis for local development in the center region of Valle del
Cauca, Colombia” , International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 289-320, available at: http://doi.org/DOI:10.1007/s12208-017-0173-3
Kamath, GB (2007), “The intellectual capital performance of the Indian banking sector”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol.
8 No. 1, pp. 96-123, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/ 14691930710715088
Kempton, L., Goddard, J., Edwards, J., Hegyi, FB and Elena-Pérez, S. (2013), “Universities and smart specialisation”,
European Commission, S3 Policy Brief Series No. 03/2013 Louise, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, available at: http://doi.org/10.2791/52851 Kok, A. (2007), “Intellectual capital management
as part of knowledge management initiatives at institutions of higher learning”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 181-192.
Laredo, P. (2007), “Revisiting the third mission of universities: toward a renewed categorization of
university activities?”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-456, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169 Lee,
S.-H. (2010), “Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for assessing their
performance contribution in a university”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp.
4941-4947, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.020
Leitner, KH (2004), “Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian
universities”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 129-140.
Leitner, KH and Warden, C. (2004), “Managing and reporting knowledge-based resources and processes
in research organizations: specifics, lessons learned and perspectives”, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-51, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2003.10.005
Leitner, K.-H., Sammer, M., Graggober, M., Schartinger, D. and Zielowski, C. (2001), “Wissensbilanzierung für
Universitäten”, Seibersdorf Research, Auftragsprojekt für das Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und
Kunst , Wien, pp. 1-86.
Leitner, K.-H., Curaj, A., Elena-Perez, S., Fazlagic, J., Kalemis, K., Martinaitis, Z., Secundo, G., Sicilia, M.-A. and Zaksa,
K. (2014), “A strategic approach for intellectual capital management in European universities”, in Leitner, K. and
Curaj, A. (Eds), Guidelines for Implementation, UEFISCDI Blueprints Series, Bucharest, pp. 1-94.
Maanen, JV (1979), “Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface”,

Qualitative Methodology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 520-526.
Mainardes, E., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2013), “Identifying Stakeholders in a Portuguese university: a
case study”, Revista de Educación, Vol. 10-12, available at: http://doi.org/10-4438/1988-592X-
RE-2012-362-167 Mouritsen, J. (2006), “Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive
versus performative IC”, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 820-841,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610709881
Munar, JLS, Urbina, BP and Cortés, C. (2014), “Prospective assessment of the intellectual capital of the University of
Atacama, using the Delphi technique”, Ingeniare. Chilean Engineering Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 567-575.
OEU (2006), Methodological Guide, PRIME, ed., Observatory of the European University, Lugano.
JIC Omran, A., Khorish, M. and Saleh, M. (2014), “Structural analysis with knowledge-based
MICMAC approach”, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 39-43, http://
20.3
doi.org/10.5120/14985-3290
Pedro, E., Leitão, J. and Alves, H. (2018), “Back to the future of intellectual capital research: a systematic literature
review”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 2502-2583, available at: http://doi. org/10.1108/
MD-08-2017-0807
380 Rahman, MS (2017), “The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and
methods in language 'testing and assessment' research: a literature review”, Journal of Education and
Learning, Vol. 102-112, available at: http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102 Ramírez-Córcoles, Y. (2012),
“Towards improved information disclosure on intellectual capital in Spanish universities”, Global Journal of Human
Social Science, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1-17.
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y. and Gordillo, SB (2014), “Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish
universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 173-188, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/
JIC-05-2013-0058 Ramirez-Corcoles, Y.
and Manzaneque-Lizano, M. (2015), “The relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: empirical evidence from
Spanish universities”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 31-44, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.27
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Lorduy, C. and Rojas, J. (2007), “Intellectual capital management in Spanish universities”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 732-748, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14691930710830873
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Peñalver, J. and Ponce, Á. (2011), “Intellectual capital in Spanish public universities:
stakeholders' information needs”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 356-376, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111154689
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Ponce, AT and Vanderdonckt, J. (2013), “How to respond to information needs of university
stakeholders: proposal of indicators for reporting on intellectual capital”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Economics and Information Technology, Vol. III No. 3, pp. 1-29.
Ramirez-Córcoles, Y., Tejada, A. and Manzaneque, M. (2016), “The value of disclosing intellectual capital in
Spanish universities”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 176-198, available
at: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230910978511
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Tejada, Á., Baidez, A. and Montero, F. (2012), “Managing intellectual capital: conceptual
background and application for European higher education institutions”, The 6yh International Conference
on Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific, Shanghai, pp. 1-8.
Sánchez, MP and Elena, S. (2006), “Intellectual capital in universities: improving transparency and internal
management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 529-548, available at: http://doi.org/
10.1108/14691930610709158
Sánchez, 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.
Santos-Rodrigues, H., Gupta, P. and Carlson, R. (2015), “Exploiting intellectual capital for economic renewal”,
International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
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”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 390-418, available at: http://doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230910978511 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, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011039651
Serna, P. (2013), “Strategic prospective in knowledge management: a proposal for research groups in
Colombia”, Research & Development, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 282-259.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, MA (2005), “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of Intellectual
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463,
capital of HEIs
available at: http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407911
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Tiwari, RK (2013), “Identification of factors affecting reverse chain performance in relation to customer
satisfaction using ISM Modeling & MICMAC Analysis”, Uncertain Supply Chain Management, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 237-252, available at: http://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2013.08.005 Veltri, S. and Silvestri, 381
A. (2015), “The free state university integrated reporting: a critical consideration”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 443-462, available at: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-07-2014-0077
Veltri, S., Mastroleo, G. and Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2014), “Measuring intellectual capital in the
university sector using a fuzzy logic expert system”, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. . 175-192, available at: http://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.53
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2a., Sage Publications, London and Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Corresponding author
Eugénia Pedro can be contacted at: eugenia@ubi.pt
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact
us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Pedro 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pedro 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

Eugenia Pedro Received 23 July 2018

JIC 1. Introduction HEIs

2. Intellectual capital in the context of public HEIs Some

JIC 3.1 The financial perspective

3.2 The internal stakeholders' perspective

3.3 The structural perspective

3.4 The external stakeholder perspective This

3.5 The learning, renovation and entrepreneurship perspective This is

Inputs Perspectives Evaluation Elements Metrics Intellectual

Source: Own elaboration

4.1 Methods to measure HEIs' organizational intellectual capital

4.2 Case study approach

Perspective 2 Resources 31 365

Perspective 1 Financial 5 Figure 2.

Perspective 2 Resources 3 Figure 3.

JIC Indicator code (perspective/

Internal stakeholder perspective

External stakeholder perspective

Learning, renovation and entrepreneurship perspective

5. Presentation and analysis of results Based

Direct influence/dependence map

SECR45 SICH5 Figure 5.

JIC Direct influence graph

SECR32 SICH9 FCE2

ECE21 ECE26 FCE3

JIC Classify variables according to their influences

Displacement map: direct/indirect Intellectual

Indicators Zone (Direct ÿ Indirect) Rise in position

6. Conclusions, implications and limitations of the study Based on the

ECE25 No. of external evaluation, qualification, accreditation and certification processes

FCE2 Ratio: expenditure on IT and communication in relation to total expenditure Yo

FCE3 Ratio: expenditure on scientific journals in relation to total R&D expenditure

ECE19 Management and organization of R&D activities (strategic planning of

SECR31% of school abandoning

SECR37 Relationships with society (no. of positions held on management/

Maanen, JV (1979), “Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface”,

You might also like