Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC™) as a Tool of Performance Measurement

• Authors: Justyna Fijałkowska
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Measurement of the performance of organization is crucial for proper economic decisions. Traditionally, it was focused mainly on financial indicators, that in the Information and Knowledge Era are no longer sufficient and do not reflect in a transparent, complete and cohesive way the multi-dimensional outcomes of business units activities. With the increase of knowledge and other intangibles as the sources of competitive advantage and future viabilities of business units, the performance measurement process must be enlarged by new approaches and new indicators. This aim of this article is to outline the evolution of the concept of measuring the companies’ performance and to present one of the methods for evaluation of enterprises’ performance - VAIC ™ - which by the definition of its author should satisfy the requirements of the New Economy [Pulic 2000, pp. 702-771]. This article focuses on highlighting the characteristics of this method and the algorithm of its calculation. It also attempts to assess the VAIC™ method, indicating its validity and usefulness. The practical example of VAIC™ calculation and interpretation in Polish media sector companies is used, covering the period of analysis of 2007-2011.

Keywords

EN

VAIC; performance measurement; tools; accounting

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 129-140

Dates

published

2014-01-01

online

2014-05-30

Contributors

author

Justyna Fijałkowska

• University of Social Sciences

References

• Andriessen, D. (2004), Making Sense of Intellectual Capital: Designing a Method for the Valuation of Intangibles, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
• Canibano L., Garcia-Ayuso M., Sanchez M.P. (2000), Accounting for intangibles: a literature review, “Journal of Accounting Literature”, vol. 19.
• Chan K. H. (2009), Impact of intellectual capital on organisational performance. An empirical study of companies in the Hang Seng Index (Part 2), “The Learning Organization”, vol. 16, no. 1.
• Chen M.C., Cheng S.J. and Hwang Y. (2005), An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital and firms’ market value and financial performance, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 6, no. 2.
• Chu S.K.W., Chan K.H., Wu W.W.Y. (2011), Charting intellectual capital performance of the gateway to China, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 12, no. 2.
• Clarke M., Seng D., Whiting R. H. (2011), Intellectual capital and firm performance in Australia, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 12, no. 4.
• Edvinsson L., Malone M. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company’s True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
• Firer S., Williams S.M. (2003), Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 4, no. 3.
• Goldfinger C. (1997), Intangible economy and its implications for statistics and statisticians, “International Statistical Review”, vol. 65, no. 2.[Crossref]
• Johnson T.H., Kaplan R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and the Fall of Management Accounting, “Harvard Business School Press”, Boston, MA.
• Kaplan R., Norton D. (1992), The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance, “Harvard Business Review”, vol. 70, no. 1.
• Kaplan R.S., Norton D.P. (2002), Strategiczna karta wyników, PWN, Warszawa.
• Komnenic B., Pokrajcic D. (2012), Intellectual capital and corporate performance of MNCs in Serbia, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 13, no. 1.
• Kujansivu P., Lonnqvist A., (2007), Investigating the value and efficiency of intellectual capital, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 8 no. 2.
• Laing G., Dunn J., Hughes-Lucas S. (2010), Applying the VAIC™ model to Australian hotels, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 11, no. 3.
• Lim L.L.K., Dallimore P. (2004), Intellectual capital: management attitudes in service industries, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 5, no. 1.
• Nakamura L. (1999), Intangibles: what put the new in the new economy?, ”Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review”, July/August.
• Nazari J.A., Herremans I.M. (2007), Extending VAIC model: measuring intellectual capital components, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 8, no. 4.
• Pulic A. (1998), Measuring the performance of intellectual potential in knowledge economy, Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress of Measuring and Managing Intellectual Capital, Mc Master University, Hamilton.
• Pulic A. (2000), VAIC™ - an accounting tool for IC management, “International Journal of Technology Management”, vol. 20, no. (5-7).
• Pulic A. (2004), Intellectual capital-does it create or destroy value?, “Measuring Business Excellence”, vol. 8, no. 1.
• Schneider U. (1998), The Austrian approach to the measurement of intellectual potential, at: http://users.austro.net/measuringip/OPapers/Schneider/Canada/theoreticalframework.html (13.09.2013).
• Shiu H.-J. (2006), The application of the value added intellectual coefficient to measure corporate performance: evidence from technological firms, “International Journal of Management”, vol. 23, no. 2.
• Stahle P., Stahle S., Aho S. (2011), Value added intellectual coefficient (VAIC); a critical analysis, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 12, no. 4.
• Sułkowski Ł., Fijałkowska J. (2013a), Corporate Social Responsibility and Intellectual Capital Interaction and Voluntary Disclosure, “Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach”, nr 150, tom 150.
• Sułkowski Ł., Fijałkowska J. (2013b), Konwergencja koncepcji społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu i kapitału intelektualnego przesłanką sukcesu przedsiębiorstw, w: Uwarunkowania sukcesu organizacji, Wyd. Fundacja Rozwoju Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk.
• Sveiby K. (1997), The New Organisational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
• Ting I.W.K., Lean H.H. (2009), Intellectual capital performance of financial institutions in Malaysia, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 10, no. 4.
• Williams S.M. (2001), Is intellectual capital performance and disclosure practice related?, “Journal of Intellectual Capital”, vol. 2, no. 3.
• Yang J.-T. (2004), Job-related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies, “Journal of Knowledge Management”, vol. 8, no. 3.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/eam-2014-0010