Comparing experiences in reporting intellectual capital in universities

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of two different new management tool, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and the Intellectual Capital Report (ICR) in managing and reporting intangibles. Unlike the majority of IC scholars the author, and consistently with Bukh et al. (2005), the author starts from the idea that BSC and ICR are not alternative, but complementary tools in measuring intangibles, addressing different needs for firms that measure, manage and report intangibles. The research hypothesis of the paper will be demonstrated through the analysis of a case study of an Italian group which use both intangibles’ reporting systems. A case study methodology has been chosen, given that it is widely used by researchers and provide the basis for the application of ideas and extension of methods (Yin, 1994). Intercos group has been chosen to test the research hypothesis, since it makes use of both models in measuring and reporting intangibles. The study of the case Intercos group found evidence that the two types of extended reporting are different and yet complementary and that both tools are necessary for firm in measuring IC, since they address different aims. This includes therefore a marked difference in use of indicators, given that IC indicators in the ICR have to support the overall aims derived by company’s strategy, while BSC indicators provides a breakdown of strategic goals with respect to profitability, growth etc. The contribution of the paper to the IC literature is to extend the findings of the Bukh et al.’s (2003) study, investigating the hypothesis (and finding evidence) that BSC and ICR are complementary in reporting intangibles in an Italian group. Implications of the paper are for company’s manager, who increase the awareness that they have at their disposal two management tools, with address different aims, to manage intangibles.