Organizacijos intelektinis kapitalas: sandaros ir pagrindinių sąvokų interpretacijos

Direct Link:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Organizacijos intelektinis kapitalas: sandaros ir pagrindinių sąvokų interpretacijos
Alternative Title:
Intellectual capital of an organization: interpretation of content and concepts
In the Journal:
Socialiniai mokslai. 2000, Nr. 3 (24), p. 65-76
Intelektinio kapitalo sandara; Intelektinio kapitalo valdymas; Intelektinis kapitalas; Sąvokų interpretacija; Žinių valdymas.
Intellectual capital; Intellectual capital structure; Interpretation of content; Knowledge management; Management of intellectual capital.
Summary / Abstract:

LTIntelektinio kapitalo valdymas yra viena naujausių vadybos mokslo sričių. Šiuo metu jai skiriamas ypatingas dėmesys, kadangi verslo pasaulis pereina į žinių amžių, kur veikti reikia atsižvelgiant į naują verslo aplinką, naujas žaidimo taisykles. Efektyvus intelektinio kapitalo valdymas gali padėti užtikrinti įmonės išlikimą ir klestėjimą naujoje ekonomikoje. Šios problemos teorinius aspektus nagrinėja nemažai mokslininkų, tačiau jų darbuose esama nemenkų prieštaravimų, nusakant, kas visgi intelektinis kapitalas yra, iš ko jis susideda. Straipsnyje pateikiama intelektinio kapitalo sampratos, sandaros ir su ja susijusių sąvokų analizė. Siūloma intelektinį kapitalą traktuoti kaip žinias, kurios gali būti konvertuotos į verte. Intelektinis kapitalas susideda iš darbuotojų kapitalo, struktūrinio kapitalo ir santykių kapitalo, kurių pastarasis dar skirstomas į vartotojų kapitalą, tiekėjų kapitalą ir prestižą. Visos šios kapitalo rūšys, išskyrus struktūrinį kapitalą, tiesiogiai nepriklauso organizacijai, tačiau ši gali jomis naudotis, siekdama savo tikslų. [Iš leidinio]

ENAs business environment changes so that the most critical asset of the organization becomes knowledge, a need for managing intellectual capital (further on referred as IС) arose. [...] Existing theories of IC management can be categorized into four categories depending on the content of IC defined in them. [...] After analyzing each category, conclusion was drawn that IC consists of three main components: human capital, structural capital and relational capital. Human capital is knowledge, skills and creativity, which give value in making solutions for clients and are embedded in people of the organization. Sveiby (1998) reffers to human capital as individual competence, Lloyd (1998) calls it individual capital. Despite the difference in the terminology, the essence is the same: the most important in human capital is knowledge, which people of an organization can use employing their skills and creativity in order to give added value to customers and organization itself. Therefore it was suggested that knowledge characteristics, listed by Quinn, Anderson and Finkelstein (1996) can be considered human capital characteristics as well. They are exponentiality of knowledge, the benefit of sharing and potential for expansion. Another important characteristic is the difficulty to measure and codify intellectual capital. Structural capital is knowledge, existing in intangible mechanisms, structures and procedures of the organization, which helps organization transform its human capital to intellectual capital and reach optimal output of the whole organization.There are various positions of writers, about what should be considered as structural capital. On the one hand it is defined it very broadly including everything what is left after employees are gone home in the evening. The above mentioned concept embrace not only intangible mechanisms and structures, but tangible property of the organization like computers, tables, etc. as well. In this article the second position is supported, where structural capital is intangible property of the organization (i.e. rights, patents, data, etc.) and knowledge, which is embedded in structures, mechanisms and procedures, culture. The third part of IC is often referred to as customer or relational capital. After analyzing their definitions, it is clear that customer capital is too narrow concept, because it mostly encompasses value, which appears from relations held with customers, but do not pay attention to the value from relations held with partners, suppliers and other interested parties. Because of the latter relational capital is a better concept We define relational capital as potential of the organization, which appears from the existing relations with customers, suppliers and stakeholders and the use of their knowledge. In the article the structure of relational capital, which was suggested by Curry and Cavendish, is supported, what means, that relational capital consists of customer capital, supplier capital and mind share. The latter means the place company takes in the minds of people. It can be compared to market share, which is calculated according to the sales volume, but mind share cannot be calculated precisely, as it should count the goodwill of people towards the company name, its products' brandnames. [From the publication]

Related Publications:
2018-12-17 10:44:56
Views: 30    Downloads: 6