- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
Evaluate intellectual capital measurement models An analytical study | ||
| magazine of college Administration&Economics for economic &administration & financial studies | ||
| Article 1, Volume 194, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 44-79 | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract The study tries to represents a comparative evaluation for the most common models to measure intellectual capital (IC).Given the recent proliferation of IC models, it is fitting to classify the models and review their individual strengths and weaknesses. The financial management in general and accounting especially, has lost much of its ability to inform as businesses have become more and more knowledge intensive. Research to date has yet to conclude how best to measure this intellectual capital. Current debates about IC are part of the search for a methodology to measure the knowledge base of a firm. The task to define the precise value of Knowledge assets, and what economy has in general is the critical factor to for the place of the firm in modern business world. This study started according to basic hypothesis, represents that the models in business do not take in account the measure of future value of IC, but they concentrate on the value of the stock instead of transactions (flow) which contributed by company assets (tangible and intangible). If these models that used to measure IC as a cause or a result. The models to be evaluated include Stern Stewart’s Market Value Added (MVA) and Economic Value Added (EVA), Tobin’s Q Ratio, Norton and Kaplan’s Balanced Score Card, Skandia’s IC Navigator, Intellectual Capital Services’ IC Index, The Technology Broker’s IC Audit, Sveiby’s Intangible Asset Monitor (IAM), Citation-weighted Patents, and Real Option Theory, and Lev residual earnings. Dimensions of model classification will include temporal orientation, system dynamics, and causal direction. The most important thing that the findings of study was the evaluating models are all did not take into consideration the future value of IC except the real options, and the dynamic of this model characterized sand concentrating on the stock and flow of the value of IC. Key Words: Intellectual capital, Intellectual capital Evaluation Models | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Intellectual capital; Intellectual capital Evaluation Models | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 173 PDF Download: 108 |
||