The BSC and IC measurement models are considered to be very similar in the literature, especially in relation to their purpose: both models integrate non-financial indicators within the firm’s report system, both models are reported annexed to the traditional balance sheet, both are models of performance management and, at a first sight, the dimensions of the two models can intersect: BSC customer perspective/IC relational capital; BSC internal processes perspective/IC structural capital; BSC learning and growth perspective/IC human capital; both models go beyond the bookkeeping model, they mix financial and non-financial indicators and relate them to the firm‘s strategy (Mouritsen et al, 2005). For all these reasons, they are considered to be alternative in measuring intangibles (Bontis et al., 1999, Olve et al., 1999) and grouped in the category of non-monetary models with a focus on single intangible assets, instead of on the whole firm (Sveiby 2001; Italian Association of Financial Analysts- AIAF 2003; Zambon, 2003). This category is known as that of scorecard methods, because the various components of intangible assets or intellectual capital are identified and indicators and indices are generated and reported in scorecards or as graphs (Sveiby, 2001).This paper seeks to extend analysis of the two models, by comparing them in relation to the modern notions of firm, strategy and value creation, in order to highlight that ICR advanced measurement models address notions of knowledge-based economy and, since knowledge is the mainstay and source of intangibles, ICR advanced measurement models are more effective than BSC in measuring intangibles.

Is the Balanced Scorecard Appropriate to Measure Intangible Resources?

VELTRI, Stefania
2011

Abstract

The BSC and IC measurement models are considered to be very similar in the literature, especially in relation to their purpose: both models integrate non-financial indicators within the firm’s report system, both models are reported annexed to the traditional balance sheet, both are models of performance management and, at a first sight, the dimensions of the two models can intersect: BSC customer perspective/IC relational capital; BSC internal processes perspective/IC structural capital; BSC learning and growth perspective/IC human capital; both models go beyond the bookkeeping model, they mix financial and non-financial indicators and relate them to the firm‘s strategy (Mouritsen et al, 2005). For all these reasons, they are considered to be alternative in measuring intangibles (Bontis et al., 1999, Olve et al., 1999) and grouped in the category of non-monetary models with a focus on single intangible assets, instead of on the whole firm (Sveiby 2001; Italian Association of Financial Analysts- AIAF 2003; Zambon, 2003). This category is known as that of scorecard methods, because the various components of intangible assets or intellectual capital are identified and indicators and indices are generated and reported in scorecards or as graphs (Sveiby, 2001).This paper seeks to extend analysis of the two models, by comparing them in relation to the modern notions of firm, strategy and value creation, in order to highlight that ICR advanced measurement models address notions of knowledge-based economy and, since knowledge is the mainstay and source of intangibles, ICR advanced measurement models are more effective than BSC in measuring intangibles.
balanced scorecard; intellectual capital report; comparison
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11770/158582
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact