Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Management and Governance
Erschienen in: Journal of Management and Governance 1/2020

29.03.2019

On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion for university managers: a case study

verfasst von: Stefania Veltri, Pina Puntillo

Erschienen in: Journal of Management and Governance | Ausgabe 1/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether universities performance management systems (PMS), consider intellectual capital (IC) management as a criterion for evaluating their managers. The issue has been addressed investigating the case study of the University of Calabria. The evaluation systems for managers of the University of Calabria were analyzed with a longitudinal approach, investigating two different systems (2012–2014 and 2015–2017). Two qualitative tools were employed: document analysis and semi-structured interviews. From a formal analysis of the evaluation systems for managers of the University of Calabria, it emerges that the reference to IC and its subcomponents is easier to identify within the individual performance component, which reduces its weight switching from the 2012–2014 to 2015–2017 evaluation system. From the analysis of semi-structured interviews, it emerges that the University of Calabria is far from considering IC substantially as a key criterion to evaluate its managers. Focusing on IC will require the development of an IC specific project addressed to make sense of this new object and of the consequent new managerial practices to give sense to IC measurements and diffuse them within the organization. The originality of the paper lies in the novelty of its aim, linking together the evaluation of universities managers, too often clouded by respect for the academicians in managerial roles, and the role of IC management as an evaluation criteria to assess their performance. The paper offers both theoretical contributions to different streams of the literature, namely the IC and PMS and public sector literature and practical contributions, filling the void between the evaluation systems of university managers as provided by theory and the application of these models in practice, a gap especially significant for public organizations.
Vorheriger Artikel A threefold perspective: conditions for collaborative governance
Nächster Artikel Can board leadership contribute to board dynamic managerial capabilities? An empirical exploration among Norwegian firms

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
In the article the terms university sector and Higher Education (HE) sector will be used as synonymous, although we are aware that the notion of the higher education sector is wider than that of the university sector. In the article, we refer to public universities.
 
2
IC and knowledge are strictly related concepts, as knowledge is the main constituent of IC, which could be defined as a dynamic system of intangible, knowledge-based resources and activities capable of creating value for the stakeholders (European Commission 2006).
 
3
“Another intriguing question that deserves attention (i.e. for the future of IC research education) is (to study) the impact of evaluation systems” (Bisogno et al. 2018, p. 25).
 
4
Originally, Petty and Guthrie (2000) outlined two stages associated with developing IC as a research field. In the first stage (from the late 1980s to the early 1990s), efforts focused on raising awareness of IC and understanding its potential for creating and managing a sustainable competitive advantage. The second stage of IC research (from the late 1990s to the early 2000s) dealt mainly with the process of measuring and managing IC from a top-down perspective (Guthrie et al. 2012).
 
5
The fourth stage IC research adds a new IC dimension to the previous ones, namely that of social capital and it is focused on the interdependencies and knowledge flows between different stakeholders and on the impact of IC management within the region/ecosystem where the organization is located (Dumay and Garanina 2013). The fifth stage IC research should develop with no boundaries and researchers should investigate whether managing IC is a worthwhile endeavour at all and be aware that IC can create value by interacting with other kind of capitals (Dumay et al. 2017; Secundo et al. 2018b). Declined in the HE sector, it means that universities should be viewed as stakeholders within a larger system and researchers could investigate how universities could solve, through IC, societal problems (Bisogno et al. 2018).
 
6
In the Alvesson and Deetz (2000) framework, the term critical is used not to find fault with current thinking about IC, instead critical is about presenting comments and opinions from a detailed analysis of IC in action (Dumay 2009a, b). In detail, there are three critical tasks, that is (1) trying to understand the impact of IC practices on both people and the organizations they belong to (insight); (2) research the theory and practice of IC at organisational level (critique); (3) managers need to learn new skills to better understand the evolving insights and critiques of IC (transformative redefinition). In a critical perspective, the question is no more “what is IC”, instead it is “How is IC, how IC works and is utilised in organizations” (Dumay 2009a).
 
7
Mouritsen (2006) recognized two basic research streams: IC-ostensive vs IC-performative and, consequently, two related but different roles of measurement. According to the IC-ostensive research stream, IC has a set of fundamental properties that exist prior to any interactions carried out by organizational actors. The IC-performative research stream instead recognizes that IC is part of a configuration of knowledge management and, consequently, it is firm and context specific and it is dynamic by nature.
 
8
In the 2015–2016 academic year, the Italian university system comprised 96 universities, classified into 66 state and 30 non-state universities. State universities are public entities funded by the national government for about 90 per cent of their total needs; on the contrary, non-state universities are funded by the national government for about 10 per cent of their total needs (Sangiorgi and Siboni 2017). Both state and non-state universities are endowed with legal status and have scientific, teaching, organizational, and financial autonomy (Agasisti 2009).
 
9
In brief, all the news introduced by the 74 decree aimed to strengthen the role of nuclei di valutazione in the universities’ performance management cycle, while the ANVUR guidelines stressed the need to integrate the performance cycle with the financial programming cycle.
 
10
Italian universities suffer from a significant split between academic and administrative functions (Lucianelli 2013). In Italian universities, a well in the University of Calabria, strategic decisions are taken by academic bodies (i.e. the Rector, the Academic Senate and the Board of Directors, as modified by the 240/2010 law, the so-called Gelmini Law), focused on the universities core functions, while the contribution provided by the administrative managers to the strategic outcomes and core services is hard to trace.
 
11
On a theoretical level, the R variable should include both the result achieved by the structure managed and the individual contribution to this result; nevertheless, for the first years of application of the 150/2009 law, the result variable for the manager will coincide with the result achieved by the structure that he/she manages.
 
12
Performance evaluation involves two distinct actions: assigning goals and measuring results. Objectives are assigned following a cascade (from the Board to the General Director, then from the General Director to the organizational units) and they are negotiated. Objectives are weighted, expressed through indicators and for each objective is calculated a minimum value, a target value, and the initial value. The second phase (results measurement) consists of the collection of useful elements for the assessment. The degree of achievement of results is measured by detecting, for each indicator associated with each goal, the actually realized values, taking into account the assigned weights. The measurement phase includes both the variance analysis (between what has been achieved and what is expected) and the in-depth analysis of the contextual factors within which actions took place.
 
13
In the IC literature there are several definitions which have been proposed for Universities (Ramírez-Córcoles et al. 2007, p. 734; Veltri et al. 2014, p. 179), and even though the typical IC components remained the main basis for discussions (Siboni et al. 2013), some authors identify an organisational capital, as opposed to structural capital, which includes elements related to both infrastructure and innovation/knowledge (OEU 2006; Sánchez et al. 2009), some others stressed the difference within structural capital by identifying “organisational” and “technological” resources (Ramírez-Córcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano 2015), some others more identified new subcomponents of the existing capitals or entirely new ones, like Bezhani (2010), which identified also “research”, “commercialising” (related to spinoffs) and “services” (as laboratory services), and Rodríguez Castellanos et al. (2004), who consider research-development-transfer capital as the most important part of IC in universities.
 
14
Consistently Silverman (2000) and with more recent articles of Dumay and Cai (2014, 2015), we exclude from our analysis the quantification typical of conventional mass media content analysis, which obscures the interpretive processes that turn talk into text.
 
15
There are a variety of interview methods, including the standardized (structured), the unstandardized (informal) and the semi-standardized (semi-structured) interview (Qu and Dumay 2011). Semi-structured interviews were employed for this research due to their flexibility and propensity to allow interviewees to disclose relevant yet sometimes hidden information. In fact, it allows stressing the interviewees’ perspective, as it enables them to express their opinion in their own style and words and to participate in the interview process together with the interviewer, producing questions and answers within a complex interpersonal talk (Qu and Dumay 2011).
 
Literatur
Agasisti, T. (2009). Market forces and competition in university systems: Theoretical reflections and empirical evidence from Italy. International Review of Applied Economics,23(4), 463–483.CrossRef
Allini, A., Caldarelli, A., & Spanò, R. (2017). La disclosure nei Piani della Performance delle università italiane. Intenti simbolici vs approcci sostanziali di legittimazione. Management Control,1, 37–59.CrossRef
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.CrossRef
Angiola, N., Bianchi, P., & Damato, L. (2018). Performance management in public universities: Overcoming bureaucracy. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,67(4), 736–753.CrossRef
ANVUR. (2015). Linee Guida per la gestione integrata del Ciclo della Performance delle università statali italiane.
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management,31(1), 1–22.CrossRef
Aversano, N., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2017). I sistemi di misurazione della performance nelle università: considerazioni critiche sul sistema italiano. Management Control,1, 15–36.CrossRef
Aversano, N., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). Performance measurement systems in universities: A critical review of the Italian system. In E. Borgonovi, et al. (Eds.), Outcome-based performance management in the public sector (pp. 269–287). Cham: Springer.CrossRef
Bezhani, I. (2010). Intellectual capital reporting at UK universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital,11(2), 179–207.CrossRef
Bisogno, M., Dumay, J., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). Identifying future directions for IC research in education: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital,19(1), 10–33.CrossRef
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal,9(2), 27–40.CrossRef
Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2009). Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research,20, 283–295.CrossRef
Bronzetti, G., Mazzotta, R., Puntillo, P., Silvestri, A., & Veltri, S. (2011). Intellectual capital reporting practices in the non-profit sector. Sumi: Virtus Interpress.
Bronzetti, G., & Veltri, S. (2007). Intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Rome: Aracne.
Busetti, S., & Dente, B. (2014). Focus on the finger, overlook the moon: The introduction of performance management in the administration of Italian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,36(2), 225–237.CrossRef
Caldarelli, A., Fiondella, C., Maffei, M., Spanò, R., & Aria, M. (2013). CEO performance evaluation systems: Empirical findings from the Italian health service. Public Money & Management,33(5), 369–376.CrossRef
Canonico, P., & Söderlund, J. (2010). Getting control of multi-project organizations: Combining contingent control mechanisms. International Journal of Project Management,28(8), 796–806.CrossRef
Cantù, E., & Carbone, C. (2007). I sistemi di finanziamento: strumenti per governare i comportamenti degli erogatori di prestazioni sanitarie? In E. Anessi Pessina & E. Cantù (Eds.), Rapporto OASI 2006 sullo stato dell’aziendalizzazione nella sanità italiana. Milan: Egea.
CENSIS. (2013). La grande guida università 2013–2014. Torino: La Repubblica.
Cepiku, D., Hinna, A., Scarozza, D., & Bonomi Savignon, A. (2017). Performance information use in public administration: An exploratory study of determinants and effects. Journal of Management and Governance,21(4), 963–991.CrossRef
Cosenz, F. (2013). The ‘entrepreneurial university’: A preliminary analysis of the main managerial and organisational features towards the design of planning & control systems in European academic institutions. Management Research and Practice,5(4), 19–36.
Cosenz, F. (2014). A dynamic viewpoint to design performance management systems in academic institutions: Theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration,37(13), 955–969.CrossRef
Cricelli, L., Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., Lianes, D., & Leidy, P. (2018). Intellectual capital and university performance in emerging countries: Evidence from Colombian public universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital,19(1), 71–95.CrossRef
Dearlove, J. (1998). The deadly dull issue of university “administration”? Good governance, managerialism and organising academic work. Higher Education Policy,11, 59–79.CrossRef
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Aldine.
Dumay, J. (2009a). Intellectual capital measurement: A critical approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital,10(2), 190–210.CrossRef
Dumay, J. (2009b). Reflective discourse about intellectual capital: Research and practice. Journal of Intellectual Capital,10(4), 489–503.CrossRef
Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2014). A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for inquiring into IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital,15(2), 264–290.CrossRef
Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital,16(1), 121–155.CrossRef
Dumay, J., & Garanina, T. (2013). Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the third stage. Journal of Intellectual Capital,14(1), 10–25.CrossRef
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Puntillo, P. (2015). IC and public sector: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital,16(2), 267–284.CrossRef
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Nielsen, C. (2017). Intellectual capital management in public universities. In J. Guthrie, J. Dumay, F. Ricceri, & C. Nielsen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to intellectual capital. London: Routledge.
Esposito, V., De Nito, E., Pezzillo Iacono, M., & Silvestri, L. (2013). Dealing with knowledge in the Italian public universities: The role of performance management systems. Journal of Intellectual Capital,14(3), 431–450.CrossRef
European Commission. (2006). RICARDIS (Reporting intellectual capital to augment research development and innovation in SMEs). Report to the commission from the High Level Expert Groups on RICARDIS, Directorate General of Research, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final. CEC, Brussels.
European Commission. (2011). Connecting universities to regional growth: A practical guide. Brussels: European Commission.
Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management accounting research,20(4), 263–282.CrossRef
Gatti, M., & Chiucchi, M. S. (2017). Context matters. Il ruolo del contesto negli studi di controllo di gestione. Management Control,3, 5–10.CrossRef
Giuliani, M. (2016). Sensemaking, sensegiving and sensebreaking: The case of intellectual capital measurements. Journal of Intellectual Capital,17(2), 218–237.CrossRef
Gowthorpe, C. (2009). Wider still and wider? A critical discussion of intellectual capital recognition, measurement and control in a boundary theoretical context. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,20(7), 823–834.CrossRef
Guthrie, J., & Dumay, J. (2015). New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital,16(2), 258–266.CrossRef
Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research. The British Accounting Review,44(2), 68–92.CrossRef
Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society,20(2/3), 93–110.CrossRef
Hopwood, A. G. (1983). On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates. Accounting, Organizations and Society,8(2–3), 287–305.CrossRef
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). Identifying interesting project phenomena using philosophical and methodological triangulation. International Journal of Project Management,34, 1043–1056.CrossRef
Kennedy, K. J. (2003). Higher education governance as a key policy issue in the 21st century. Educational Research for Policy and Practice,2(1), 55–70.CrossRef
Kong, E. (2010). Intellectual capital and non-profit organizations in the knowledge economy: Editorial and introduction to special issue. Journal of Intellectual Capital,11(2), 97–106.CrossRef
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Leitner, K.-H. (2004). Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian universities. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 129–140.CrossRef
Lucianelli, G. (2013). University governance at the crossroads: The Italian case. International Journal of Business Research and Development,2(2), 20–34.CrossRef
Martin-Sardesai, A., & Guthrie, J. (2018). Human capital loss in an academic performance measurement system. Journal of Intellectual Capital,19(1), 53–70.CrossRef
Martin-Sardesai, A., Irvine, H., Tooley, S., & Guthrie, J. (2017). Organizational change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise. The British Accounting Review, 49(4), 399–412.CrossRef
Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. (2006). Management control systems, performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Mettänen, P. (2005). Design and implementation of a performance measurement system for a research organization. Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations,16(2), 178–188.CrossRef
Michalak, J., Krasodomska, J., Rimmel, G., Sort, J., & Trzmielak, D. (2017). The past, present and future for intellectual capital research: An overview. In J. Guthrie, J. Dumay, F. Ricceri, & C. Nielsen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to intellectual capital. London: Routledge.
Minelli, E., Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2008). How can evaluation fail? The case of Italian universities. Quality in Higher Education,14(2), 157–173.CrossRef
Mouritsen, J. (2006). Problematising intellectual capital research: Ostensive versus performative IC. Journal of Intellectual Capital,19(6), 820–841.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,20(4), 849–866.CrossRef
Nardo, M. T., Sangiorgi, D., & Siboni, B. (2017). Indagine sulla qualità dei piani della performance nelle università italiane. Quali prospettive per il futuro? Economia Aziendale Online,8(1), 57–68.
Nisio, A., Carolis, R. D., & Losurdo, S. (2018). Introducing performance management in universities: The case of a university in Southern Italy. International Journal of Management in Education,12(2), 132–153.CrossRef
Nuti, S., Seghieri, C., & Vainieri, M. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of a performance evaluation system in the public health care sector: Some novel evidence from the Tuscany region experience. Journal of Management and Governance,17(1), 59–69.CrossRef
OEU—Observatory of the European University. (2006). Methodological guide—Strategic management of university research activities, Prime, European Commission.
Parisi, C. (2013). The impact of organisational alignment on the effectiveness of firms’ sustainability strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management and Governance,17(1), 71–97.CrossRef
Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital,1(2), 155–176.CrossRef
Prisacaru, V., & Litvin, A. (2017). Quality management in the higher education of the Republic of Moldova as a framework for university performance. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business,64(4), 431–446.CrossRef
Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management,8(3), 238–264.CrossRef
Ramirez Corcoles, Y., Santos Penalver, J. F., & Tejada Ponce, A. (2011). Intellectual capital in Spanish public universities: Stakeholders’ information needs. Journal of Intellectual Capital,12(3), 356–376.CrossRef
Ramirez, Y., & Gordillo, S. (2014). Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital,15(1), 173–188.CrossRef
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Lorduy, C., & Rojas, J. A. (2007). Intellectual capital management in Spanish universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital,8(4), 732–748.CrossRef
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., & Manzaneque-Lizano, M. (2015). The relevance of intellectual capital disclosure: Empirical evidence from Spanish universities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice,13(1), 31–44.CrossRef
Rodríguez Castellanos, A., Landeta Rodríguez, J., & Youlianov Ranguelov, S. (2004). University R&D&T capital: What types of knowledge drive it? Journal of Intellectual Capital,5(3), 478–499.CrossRef
Rubino, F., Puntillo, P., & Veltri, S. (2017). Il ruolo dei manager universitari in un’ottica di performance integrata. Analisi di un caso studio. Management Control,3, 95–122.CrossRef
Rutherford, A., & Meier, K. J. (2015). Managerial goals in a performance-driven system: Theory and empirical tests in higher education. Public Administration,93(1), 17–33.CrossRef
Ryan, B., Scapens, R., & Theobald, M. (2002). Research method and methodology in finance and accounting. London: Thomson.
Sánchez, M. P., Elena, S., & Castrillo, R. (2009). Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: A reporting model. Journal of Intellectual Capital,10(2), 307–324.CrossRef
Sangiorgi, D., & Siboni, B. (2017). The disclosure of intellectual capital in Italian universities: What has been done and what should be done. Journal of intellectual capital,18(2), 354–372.CrossRef
Scapens, R. W. (2004). Doing case study research. In C. Humphrey & B. H. K. Lee (Eds.), The real life guide to accounting research: A behind-the-scenes view of using qualitative research methods (pp. 257–279). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2016). Managing intellectual capital through a collective intelligence approach: An integrated framework for universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital,17(2), 298–319.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Elena-Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž., & Leitner, K.-H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities: A dynamic approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital,16(2), 419–442.CrossRef
Secundo, G., & Elia, G. (2014). A performance measurement system for academic entrepreneurship: A case study. Measuring Business Excellence,18(3), 23–37.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Lombardi, R., & Dumay, J. (2018a). Intellectual capital in education. Journal of Intellectual Capital,19(1), 2–9.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Bagnoli, G. (2018b). Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage IC research: A critical case study in university settings. Journal of Intellectual Capital,19(1), 157–177.CrossRef
Siboni, B., Nardo, M. T., & Sangiorgi, D. (2013). Italian state university contemporary performance plans: An intellectual capital focus? Journal of Intellectual Capital,14(3), 414–430.CrossRef
Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 821–834). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teelken, C. (2015). Hybridity, coping mechanisms, and academic performance management: Comparing three countries. Public Administration,93(2), 307–323.CrossRef
Veltri, S., & Bronzetti, G. (2015). A critical analysis of the intellectual capital measuring, managing, and reporting practices in the non-profit sector: Lessons learnt from a case study. Journal of Business Ethics,131(2), 305–318.CrossRef
Veltri, S., Mastroleo, G., & Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2014). Measuring intellectual capital in the university sector using a fuzzy logic expert system. Knowledge Management Research & Practice,12, 175–192.CrossRef
Welman, C., & Kruger, S. J. (2001). Research methodology for the business and administrative sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation,19(3), 321–332.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion for university managers: a case study
verfasst von
Stefania Veltri
Pina Puntillo
Publikationsdatum
29.03.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Management and Governance / Ausgabe 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1385-3457
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-963X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-019-09461-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Journal of Management and Governance 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Business group diversification, financial constraints and firm performance: the case of Tunisian group affiliated firms

OriginalPaper

Family firms, institutional development and earnings quality: does family status complement or substitute for weak institutions?

OriginalPaper

Market enforcement under different legal regimes: a comparison of France and Canada

OriginalPaper

A threefold perspective: conditions for collaborative governance

OriginalPaper

Leadership style in a board of directors: implications of involvement in the strategic decision-making process

OriginalPaper

An interpretive framework of the interplay of competition and cooperation

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise