2_Intangible Assets_Overview_EN

coilcruelΔιαχείριση

6 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 3 μέρες)

61 εμφανίσεις

RED DE PROPIEDAD INTELLECTUAL E INDUSTRIAL

EN LATINOAMÉRICA

PILA
-
Network is a project co
-
funded by the European Union in the framework of the ALFA
programme

MODULE
3

¡Think Academic


Act Business!

Management of Intangible Assets in
Higher Education

INTANGIBLE ASSETS



AN OVERVIEW

Welcome


Warm Up


Overview

2

PILA Kick
-
off Meeting, 19
-
20 January 2009

Agenda


General Overview


Definitions and Concepts


Implications for Management


Structure of Intangible Assets


Group Assignment


General Overview

When a university becomes a learning organisation
with shared vision and shared institutional awareness,
with participation by all, a dynamic interactive
environment emerges where the lines between
teaching and learning, and education and training, are
blurred and lifelong education is the norm.

(Childs 2001)

Growing Importance

In 1978, intangible assets were determined to constitute only 5
percent of all assets, while they become 78 percent of all
assets today. Some 50
-
90 percent of the value created by a
firm in today’s economy is estimated to come from the
management of the firm’s intellectual capital rather than from
the use and production of material goods (Guthrie and
Yongvanich, 2004).

Source: Chareonsuk and Chansa
-
ngavej (2008)

Necessity to actively manage IPR

In view of the realities of the present funding system in
higher education and the need to exploit alternative
forms of income, specifically the "third money
stream" (where funds are earned from other sources
than students and government). […] higher
educational institutions will be required to exploit
their intellectual property rights to a far higher level
than has been the case in the past.

Kok, A (2007) “Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions
of Higher Learning”
The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 Issue 2, pp 181
-

192,
available online at www.ejkm.com

Research on Intangible Assets

Source: Chareonsuk and Chansa
-
ngavej (2008)

Definitions and Concepts

Intellectual Assets vs. Intelectual Capital


According to Klein and Prusak (1994), one can define intellectual
capital operationally as intellectual material that has been
formalised, captured and leveraged to produce a higher valued
asset.


While many authors use the terms “intellectual asset„ and
"intellectual capital" interchangeably, there are subtle differences
between the meanings of the two.


In balance sheet terms, intellectual assets are those knowledge
-
based items that the organisation owns that will produce a future
stream of benefits for the organisation. They are the "debits" or
individual items that comprise intellectual assets on the balance
sheet, whereas


Intellectual capital is the total stock of balancing "capital" or
knowledge
-
based equity ("credits") that the organisation
possesses. Ideally, the total value of intellectual assets should be
equal to the total intellectual capital (Lynn 1998).

Kok, A (2007) “Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions of Higher Learning


Intangible Assets is more than
Intellectual Property

Epstein and Mirza (2005) defined intangible assets as non
-
financial
assets without physical substance that are held for use in the
production or supply of goods or services or for rental to others, or
for administrative purposes, which are identifiable and are
controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events, and from
which future economic benefits are expected to flow.

There are a whole range of possible classes of intangibles, such as:



brand names


mastheads and publishing titles


computer software


licenses and franchises


copyrights, patents and other industrial property rights


recipes, formulas, models, designs and prototypes


intangible assets under development

Source: Chareonsuk and Chansa
-
ngavej (2008)

Characteristics of Intangible Assets


Partial Excludability


Non owners can not always easily be excluded


E.g. patent infringment, employees changing jobs, valuation problems,
etc.




not fully controllable assets


Nonmarketability


Imperfect (intransparent) or non existing markets for trading
intangible assets, e.g. licensing of patents and trademarks,


Reason is mostly asymmetric information


Leads to problems in trading on transparent markets and therefore
pricing and valuation problems and increases risk of holding intangible
assets


Interdependence between different intangible assets


i.e. R&D expenditure and employee competences or brand value (e.g.
Google, Microsoft, etc.)

Source: Lev (2005) Intangible Assets


Concepts and Measurements, in Encyclopedia of Social Measurement

Implications for Management

So what is the problem with Intangibles?


Measurement problems (mostly benefit or output related)
due to fuzzy identification of intangibles


Valuation problems


Uncertain future cash flows (from i.e. patents, or an employee training
programme)


Risky and uncertain future development of intangible assets (How to
value a brand that is constantly threatened by competitors?)













So which is the intangible asset we should invest in, in order
to generate the highest return on investment?


How high is the optimal investment?

Source: Lev (2005) Intangible Assets


Concepts and Measurements, in Encyclopedia of Social Measurement

To Do‘s for universities worldwide

Institutions themselves will have to implement


Measures to protect, safeguard and market the
intellectual property produced by staff and students;
and


Policies to ensure that all participants share in the
income derived from intellectual property on a basis
that is fair, equitable and of a nature that encourages
disclosure of inventions and discoveries.

Kok, A (2007) “Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions
of Higher Learning”
The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 Issue 2, pp 181
-

192,
available online at www.ejkm.com

Measurement Models

According to Sveiby (2004) and Malhotra (2003), there are four
basic methods to classify measurement models for
intellectual capital:



Market capitalisation method



The difference between
market capitalisation and stockholders’ equity is calculated.


Return on assets method



Tangible assets and the annual
financial figures are compared to the industry average. Above
-
average earnings are then used to estimate the value of
intangible assets.


Direct intellectual capital method



Components are
identified and valued.


Scorecard method



Various components of intellectual
capital are identified and reflected in terms of scorecards and
graphs.

Kok, A (2007) “Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions of Higher Learning


Effective Management of Intellectual
Capital

Institutions of higher learning that manage their intellectual
capital effectively are strategically focused on managing the
following aspects:


Human capital management and measurement


Intellectual capital asset systems and competitive technology
assessments


Intellectual property systems

Intellectual capital is of substantial and growing importance in
innovation and productivity growth, organisational
competitiveness and economic performance. Intellectual
capital, which may, include aspects such as R&D, human
resources, organisational structure and processes, and
customer relations, is often poorly identified and measured.

Kok, A (2007) “Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions of Higher Learning


Elements of intellectual capital

Many practitioners suggest that Intellectual capital consists of three
elements. [See for example Sveiby (1997), Saint Onge (1996), and Bontis
(1998).]


Human capital

which includes experience, the know
-
how, capabilities, skills, and
expertise of the human members of the organisation


Structural capital

(or organisational capital)

which includes the systems, networks, policies, culture, distribution
channels, and other "organisational capabilities" developed to meet
market requirements as well as intellectual property


Relational (customer) capital

which includes the connections that people outside the organisation have
with it, their loyalty, the market share, the level of back orders, and similar
issues

Kok, A (2007) “Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions
of Higher Learning”
The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
Volume 5 Issue 2, pp 181
-

192,
available online at www.ejkm.com

Structure of Intangible Assets

Categorization of Intangible Assets

Source: Chareonsuk and Chansa
-
ngavej (2008)

Intellectual capital structure for research

Source: Ramirez et al (2007), Intellectual capital management in Spanish universities

Intangible Assets in Corporations

Source: Chareonsuk and Chansa
-
ngavej (2008)

Based on work of Sveiby (1997), Shaikh (2004)

Group Assignment

Group Work


Form small groups of 3 persons, ideally from different
universities or departments to get a comprehensive view!


Identify in your team through brainstorming and discussion
the most important intangible assets in universities


Note the intangible assets on post
-
its and stick them on a
piece of flipchart paper


Try to cluster your intangible assets according to one of the
structures presented



Your overall timeframe is
20 minutes


When finished, put your poster up on a wall


We will go through 2
-
3 posters to identify the common findings

RED DE PROPIEDAD INTELLECTUAL E INDUSTRIAL

EN LATINOAMÉRICA

PILA
-
Network is a project co
-
funded by the European Union in the framework of the ALFA
programme

Thank

you

for

your

attention

www.pila
-
network.org