What it means is what it does: a comparative analysis of implementing intellectual capital in Norway and Spain

Abstract

The implementation of the intellectual capital (IC) concept at firm level introduces a new vocabulary to the existing language set. Firms are attempting to make sense of the concept and, in the process, operationalize it in terms of specific management tools. This paper provides a comparative analysis of intellectual capital trajectories in Norway and Spain. Although the implementation designs are different (selected small and medium-sized enterprises and sector in Norway and more non-selected in Spain), the paper finds that a dominant accounting perspective can lead to an excessive focus on measurement issues and little attention to management processes. Alternatively, introducing IC with a broader and less defined focus might help newcomers to experiment with the concept in a more open-minded way. In non-experienced firms the entrance point matters, as it defines the meaning for new words and concepts such as intellectual capital or intangibles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support received from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education, post-doctoral fellowship awarded 2002, the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) under research grant TYIN 136331/223 awarded in 1999, and the European Commission under the TSER grant SOE1-CT98-1104 awarded in 1998. We would also like to thank our colleagues of the Meritum project for many inspiring discussions, and Stefano Zambon, editor of this Special Issue, for his consistent support and constructive feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

¹Meritum (measuring intangibles to understand and improve innovation management) is a research project sponsored by the TSER Programme of the European Commission. The following six countries are involved: Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, Spain (co-coordinator) and Sweden, for the period November 1998 to April 2001. More information is available on http://www.eu-know.net

²A routine is defined as a commonly adopted treatment of an occurrence or phenomenon that is maintained over a period of time. For the purpose of this paper, routines are to be understood in the use made by Nelson and Winter (1983) in describing an evolutionary theory of the firm by means of its organizational capabilities and behavioural patterns, and used later by Grant (1996) and Johanson et al. (2001a, b) in proposing decision-making routines for the knowledge-based firm.