The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm

Intellectual
The intellectual capital of higher capital of HEIs
education institutions
Operationalizing measurement through
a strategic prospective lens 355
Eugénia Pedro Received 23 July 2018
Department of Management and Economics, Revised 12 November 2018
17 February 2019
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal and Accepted 3 March 2019
NECE – Research Center in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal
João Leitão
NECE and C-MAST,
University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal and
CEG-IST and ICS, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, and
Helena Alves
Department of Management and Economics,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal and
NECE – Research Center in Business Sciences,
University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an innovative operational proposal for measuring
the intellectual capital (IC) of higher education institutions (HEIs) through a strategic prospective lens
of analysis.
Design/methodology/approach – After providing a literature review on the methods for measuring
IC that focuses on the organisational IC of HEIs, four case studies applied to Portuguese HEIs are
presented, using a matrix of cross-referenced impacts – multiplications applied to a classification
(MICMAC) approach.
Findings – The empirical findings reveal how human capital, structural capital and relational capital make
up the core components and provide a fairly diversified list of the measurement indicators for the operational
evaluation of the IC of HEIs.
Practical implications – It contributes into the literature of strategic prospective analysis of HEIs by:
analysing the measurement systems for the organisational IC interrelated with HEIs; identifying the key
components to the organisational IC of HEIs and their respective measurement indicators; and draufting a
new method for operationally implementing organisational IC through the systematic application of the
components and indicators identified.
Originality/value – Through an innovative vision, the present study reconciles and systematically
structures the methods already proposed by other authors before presenting an innovative operational
approach and an alternative to the already existing methods. In addition, the structure of this proposal itself
enables HEIs to choose from among the various indicators proposed for IC, correspondingly those that best
align with the type of institution under evaluation.
Keywords Strategic management, Intellectual capital, Higher education institutions, MICMAC, Prospective
Paper type Research paper

The authors gratefully acknowledge the editor and the anonymous reviewers for providing very
constructive and useful comments that enabled us to make additional efforts to improve the clarity, Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2019
scientific soundness, positioning and quality of our research. Funding: the authors acknowledge the pp. 355-381
financial support granted by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) to the research project: © Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
“U-value”PTDC/EGE-OGE/29926/2017. DOI 10.1108/JIC-07-2018-0117
JIC 1. Introduction
20,3 HEIs should compete more openly for teaching staff, researchers, students and financial
funding, while also adopting management procedures and producing reports and other
informative documents that enable internal and external bodies to evaluate their
performance (Sánchez et al., 2009). This has caused increased interest in application of the IC
concept to HEIs (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles,
356 2012; Veltri et al., 2014; Santos-Rodrigues et al., 2015).
To deal with multiple missions and fulfil their duties regarding the provision of
accounts, HEIs need to improve management mechanisms, accountability and the
presentation of results (Sánchez et al., 2009). As recognised by Chatterton and Goddard
(2000), responding to new demands also requires new types of resources and new forms of
management to allow HEIs to make a more dynamic contribution to effective fulfilment of
their development process.
In this context, HEIs have been recognised as critical actors in national innovation
systems to fulfil the Lisbon Strategy in relation to creating a Europe of Knowledge
(OEU, 2006), and the European Union has also issued a specific recommendation to promote
IC reports in HEIs and research institutions (European Commission, 2006). The OEU (2006)
also mentions that in the near future, publishing information about IC should be obligatory
for this type of institution.
More recently, researchers have shown greater interest in the application and
management of IC in the HEI context (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011;
Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Veltri et al., 2014; Santos-Rodrigues et al., 2015). However, so far,
little attention has been paid to the use of prospective analysis methods that allow
assessment and greater adoption of IC management practices in HEIs, following a strategic
vision over time. Added to this is the difficulty of measuring the intangible nature of IC,
confirmed by previous attempts to propose indicators to measure and operationalise the
concept, above all in the organisational context. This is reflected in studies that focus on
situational, short-term visions that are unable to produce a matrix to serve as a guide to
decision making based on IC management practices oriented towards a long-term strategic
vision of organisations. The exception is found in studies that use different types of
prospective analyses, namely systemic analysis (Elena-Pérez et al., 2011), analysis based on
scenarios (Serna, 2013) and analysis using the Delphi technique (Munar et al., 2014), which
although providing analyses applied in the HEI context, are based on different approaches
from the one presented here.
The study by Elena-Pérez et al. (2011) provides a systemic prospective analysis aiming to
indicate future directions for academic departments, helping to identify future research
topics and curricula; and to define strategies for human resources, with a view to carrying
out those research activities and offering new courses.
In Serna (2013), the analysis is based on hypothetical scenarios and specific actions in the
context of systems of competitive intelligence and technological surveillance, to identify the
most relevant variables to be monitored by research groups, as a preliminary step towards
subsequent exercises of technological forecasting.
Munar et al. (2014) measured the variables of intellectual capital (IC) in the University of
Atacama, for a future ten-year period, using the Delphi technique, which is a method of
group decision making characterised by each group member presenting their ideas but
never face-to-face with the other elements.
This study differs from the three previously presented in two ways. First, it uses a
structural analysis method, which is a systemic method in the form of a matrix (MICMAC),
to analyse the relationships between the variables forming the system studied and those
belonging to its explanatory context, aiming to reveal the main influencing and dependent
variables, and therefore the essential variables for development of the system studied
(Godet and Durance, 2011). This method was originally developed by Godet (1979), Intellectual
providing in a given system the possibility of assessing which are the main influencers capital of HEIs
(or indicators) and dependent variables, through the creation of a constructed matrix with
variables previously selected by the researchers/users, which also should ensure their
adequate description. The use of this method provides also the possibility of designing a
case study approach based on a rigorous strategic prospective analysis, making use of IC
measurement indicators of HEIs. Second, the results obtained here provide in an original 357
way a matrix of prospective planning and control of HEIs’ strategic decisions, based on
the paradigm of IC applied to HEIs, which was tested considering the views of different
experts and practitioners, emphasising the importance of the implications and insights
presented in this research.
New measuring systems and the production of reports have enabled HEIs to attain a
higher level of transparency as regards how they spend public funding; explaining
the results of research, training, innovation and their benefits for stakeholders; illustrating
the development of their intangible assets; demonstrating the effects of leveraging and
positive externalities; the communication of organisational values; and demonstrating their
own competitiveness (Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014). However, these authors
also warn that in the majority of countries there is still no obligation or even
recommendations for HEIs to measure and submit information and details about their IC, a
situation that persists today.
In this context, there is a need to identify just which initiatives have been subject to
development for the purposes of measuring HEIs’ IC. In this scope, the current study develops
a proposal for the operational implementation of IC measurement for HEIs through qualitative
research based on analysis of the literature on the MICMAC methods of measurement, with
particular emphasis on the organisational intellectual capital (OIC) of HEIs. In addition, in this
case, qualitative research has advantages, as by not using statistical methods, it allows
incorporating multiple situations (Rahman, 2017) and is multi-method in focus, involving an
interpretative approach to the matter analysed (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994), including a series
of interpretative techniques that seek to describe, decode, translate and, alternatively, reach an
agreement on the meaning, rather than the frequency, of certain phenomena occurring
naturally, to a greater or lesser extent, in the social world (Maanen, 1979).
The current proposal aims to: analyse the OIC measurement system related to the public
sector and especially HEIs, as detailed in the benchmark literature (advantages and
disadvantages); identify the core components of the OIC of HEIs and their respective
measurement indicators; and draft a proposal for an innovative operational approach to
measuring IC through systematisation of the core components and their indicators identified
in the literature review and in presenting the multiple case studies.
There are various different forms of categorising the OIC concept, whether by academics
or by organisational managers. Thus, we need to stress that the literature contains
numerous concepts for OIC (e.g. Sveiby, 1997; Bontis, 1998; Subramaniam and Youndt,
2005). In general terms, this study considers OIC as the combination of an organisation’s
intangible resources, which are represented by every type of knowledge, information,
intellectual property, among others, and which stems from human and technological
resources that provide the sources of the value added generated for all the organisation’s
stakeholders and forming a source of competitive advantage.
This study contributes to expanding understanding of the different ways of measuring
IC within the HEI context, whether undertaken by the research community or by HEI
managers. First, regarding theory, the study represents additional empirical confirmation of
the triad of capitals forming IC (Pedro et al., 2018), applied to the HEI context. Second, in
terms of application, it proposes a set of indicators gathered in the literature of reference,
which is tested and refined based on four case studies. Third, after determining the key
JIC indicators for each of the three main components of IC, a prospective, bi-dimensional
20,3 analysis is carried out, considering the degree of dependence between the decision variables
and the corresponding degree of influence. Fourth, this prospective analysis allows the
design of a strategic decision matrix setting out from the so-called input variables which,
after combinatory analysis, can identify four fundamental types of variable for long-term
strategic decisions, i.e. intermediate; resultant; excluded; and clustered; these allowing
358 identification of the HEI’s current strategic positioning, as well as future paths for their
sustainable development from a long-term perspective.
Through an innovative vision and a practical format, the present study reconciles and
systematically structures the methods already proposed by other authors, before presenting
an innovative operational approach and an alternative to existing methods. In addition, the
structure of the proposal itself enables HEIs to choose from the various indicators proposed
for IC, corresponding to those most aligned with the type of institution under evaluation.

2. Intellectual capital in the context of public HEIs

Some public organisations have engaged in significant and important efforts to measure,
manage and promote their IC. The existence of specific factors such as: the greater
autonomy of the university system (Sánchez et al., 2009); the emergence of the third mission
involving the social dimension of universities (Laredo, 2007); greater restrictions in state
financing (Chevaillier, 2002); have all fostered HEIs’ adoption of a new vision and
management strategy deploying new tools that enable the inclusion of valuations of their
intangible assets into their reports and accounts (Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al.,
2009). Other authors (including the European Commission, 2003; Leitner, 2004;
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015) also refer
to cultural changes enacted through a new focus on the production of knowledge and the
implementation of new research methods; policy changes reflected in the growing
internationalisation of teaching and research; and, additionally, the pressure for greater
harmonisation among the different higher education systems, for example, in the European
context with the Bologna process and the launch of the European Research Space.
IC ranks among the most critical and important resources for knowledge organisations
(Kamath, 2007), as is the case of HEIs given that their inputs and outputs are mostly
intangible and interrelated with knowledge. Correspondingly, HEIs produce knowledge
(e.g. research results, publications, patents, among others), convey knowledge through
teaching (Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014) and employ knowledge workers (Cong and
Pandya, 2003).
The knowledge about the strategic role played by formal and informal relationships
established between internal and external stakeholders of HEIs (Mainardes et al., 2013),
which seem to be connected with the components of the HEIs organisational IC, has to be
deepened, in the sense that the interests convergence should be promoted among the
representatives of the HEIs’ internal community and external entities’ network. The internal
stakeholders are mainly concerned with students, staff and strategic or management
boards, whereas the external stakeholders denote an increasingly complex nature since it
embraces public and private institutions in the international, national and regional level that
need to co-create shared interests and goals using a common decision-making platform.
When referring to HEIs, the term IC covers all an institution’s intangible or non-physical
assets, including its processes, capacities for innovation, patents, its members’ tacit
knowledge and their abilities, talents and capacities, recognition by society, the network of
collaborators and their contacts, among others (Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles
and Gordillo, 2014). Furthermore, HEIs’ most valuable resources include their lecturers,
researchers, management and administrative staff, governors and students and the entire
extent of their respective relationships and organisational routines (Leitner, 2004).
 The human capital of HEIs is the sum of explicit and tacit knowledge held by all Intellectual
the human resources in the institution (teaching, research and development, capital of HEIs
top-management and management/administrative staff in all divisions), acquired through
both formal and non-formal education and the training processes included in their activities
(Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo,
2014; Veltri and Silvestri, 2015).
The structural capital of HEIs encapsulates all explicit knowledge interrelated with the 359
internal processes of promotion, communication and the management of scientific and technical
knowledge in the organisation, which spans both the organisational (operating environment
derived from the interactions between research, management and the organisation of processes,
organisational routines, corporate culture and values, internal procedures, within the scope of
quality and information systems, among others), and the technological (technological
resources available in the university, such as bibliographic and documentary resources,
archives, technical developments, patents, licenses, software, databases, among others) facets
(Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014).
The relational capital of HEIs reflects the extensive collection of economic, political and
institutional relationships built up and maintained between HEIs and their non-academic
partners (companies, non-governmental organisations, local government and society in general),
as well as others perceptions about the institution in terms of its image, levels of attractiveness,
trust and security, among others (Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Veltri and Silvestri, 2015).

3. Conciliation of the methods for measuring the HEIs organisational IC and

operational proposal
The operational proposal set out below opted for the Scorecard (SCC) method. The SCC method
builds up a table for evaluation, applicable due to its non-monetary methodology because, in the
perspective of Bontis (1998), monetary methods cover only a limited number of intangible
assets. Thus, non-monetary methods may produce more reliable results as they apply more
natural measurement scales for each indicator rather than converting everything into monetary
values, grouping the indicators into a consistent and coherent framework, based on the
components of IC (Daniels and Noordhuis, 2005). Examples of this method include: Intangibles
Assets Monitor by Sveiby (1997); and Skandia Navigator by Edvinsson and Malone (1997).
The SCC-based model methods provide a perspective on the past, the present and the
future, as well as a more generalised idea of the organisation with one of the core advantages
arising from its application encapsulating exactly this wide reaching vision of intangible
assets, which not only applies to any level of the organisation but is also adaptable to any type
of organisation. Among the other advantages are the speed of obtaining results and their easily
understood nature for the organisation combined with the ease of adjustment when detecting
and correcting errors in organisational processes. While sensitive to changes in context and
difficulties in analysing the quantity of information returned, according to Kok (2007), SCC
methods identify the various components of IC, enabling the generation of indicators and
indexes with their results being presented in a scorecard or in the form of graphical
representations and enabling closer measurement of the ongoing inputs, processes and results.
The same author also proposes that SCC models are the ones most commonly applied in
knowledge management, which also makes them applicable to measuring the IC of HEIs.
Taking the above into account, for the operational proposal under consideration here, the
challenge stems from measuring the IC of HEIs through recourse to the SCC approach with a
focus on the following five perspectives: financial; internal stakeholders; external
stakeholders; structural; and learning, renovation and entrepreneurship. These
perspectives incorporate the components of IC detailed above and the respective
indicators returned by the diverse studies consulted. Consequently, the SCC structure of
HEIs’ IC can be defined according to the terms presented below.
JIC 3.1 The financial perspective
20,3 The majority of HEIs depend on state budgetary funding and their own revenue raised
through enrolment charges and other fees. Thus, there is a need to include some indicators
to convey information about the financial profitability and stability (public) or the
cost-effectiveness/efficiency rate as proposed by Leitner et al. (2014). Examples of such
statistics include human resource expenditure and costs incurred with R&D and
360 information technology (IT), among others.

3.2 The internal stakeholders’ perspective

Comparable to the human perspective of Skandia Navigator, this approach interacts
dynamically with all the other perspectives. This covers indicators related to HEIs’ human
capital, which includes all the staff employed, covering the typology of personnel, their
qualifications, technical and social competences and leadership capacity, among others.

3.3 The structural perspective

This includes structural capital indicators and may also congregate indicators related to
administrative, academic and research structures as well as organisational facilities and
infrastructure, among others. Leitner et al. (2014) also incorporate in this approach those
indicators related to financial objectives and connected to financial and budgetary
structures, the costs associated with R&D activities, innovation and others.

3.4 The external stakeholder perspective

This perspective goes beyond the client perspective and interacts with the capacity to
supply goods and services of quality, with efficiency in the relationships with clients so as to
gain their satisfaction (Leitner et al., 2014). This perspective embraces every external HEI
stakeholder and extends to the political, social, cultural and environmental commitments
made by HEIs. Thus, this contains indicators spanning relational capital, taking into
consideration facets such as student satisfaction, collaboration and cooperation with other
public and private organisations, social and environmental responsibilities, among others.

3.5 The learning, renovation and entrepreneurship perspective

This is of great importance in that this perspective guarantees sustainability, serving as a
foundation stone for the generation of added value by sustainable means into the future.
This replaces the word development, as employed, for example, in Skandia Navigator, with
that of entrepreneurship[1]as this better adapts to the current HEI context and
correspondingly represents a key factor raised on various occasions in earlier studies
(Laredo, 2007; Leitner et al., 2014; Drucker, 2015). This perspective incorporates all
indicators that reflect factors including changes in attitude which then drive innovation,
foster entrepreneurship and the sustainability of HEIs. Among other aspects, such
indicators can highlight employee capacities for innovation, prototypes developed, spin-off
companies launched and training supplied and developed by staff.
In keeping with the above, Figure 1 presents the operational proposal for measuring the
IC of HEIs.
This proposal arises out of the five analytical perspectives formed by a set of indicators
referring to HEIs’ IC resources (human capital, structural capital and relational capital). The
objective is not to attribute any monetary value to the IC existing in HEIs but rather to
evaluate and measure the total set of knowledge in this institution in the form of its IC,
ascertaining whether or not this is growing and suggesting measures for better use of
intangible assets. This considers different intangible factors for each component,
corresponding to variables shown by the aggregated indicators.
 Inputs Perspectives Evaluation Elements Metrics Intellectual
Structural • Typology of HC
capital of HEIs
• Capabilities and competences Human
Human • Efficiency and efficacy
capital
Capital • Formation

Measurement Indicators
(i =1,…,m)

HEIs Performance
Operating environment

Learning, renovation and

Intangible Elements
• Organizational capital
IC Components

entrepreneurship
• Technological capital
Financial

Structural Structural
Capital
Internal
Stakeholders • Political, social, cultural and
environmental commitments
capital
(j = 1,…,n)
361
• External cooperation/
collaboration
• Network development
• Efficiency of teaching
Relational • Image and public Relational
Capital understanding of science capital
• Relations with the outside
(k = 1,…,o)
world
External
Figure 1.
• Knowledge transfer
Stakeholders
Operational proposal
Scenarios for measuring the IC
Past Present Future of HEIs
Source: Own elaboration

The final indicators returned by the literature review identify how these exist in large
numbers (102), especially when taking into account the requirement stipulated by
Ramírez-Córcoles et al. (2012) to include only a limited number of approximately 40. Hence,
to reduce and define the key indicators and their corresponding weightings, we used case
studies applied to four Portuguese HEIs.

4. Methodology
In this item, we present methods organised into two parts. In the first one, the methods of
measuring IC components existent in the literature are identified, by making an innovative
application to the context of HEI, since until now previous research efforts had not
operationalized aggregating metrics regarding the dominant triad of IC components: human
capital; structural capital; and relational capital; which form the basis of HEI’s IC. In the
second, the case study approach is described, presenting the case file, the questionnaire and
the categorisation of the indicators, and the prospective strategic analysis using the
MICMAC methodology.

4.1 Methods to measure HEIs’ organisational intellectual capital

The “Europe 2020” strategy purposely recognises the central role of HEIs in helping Europe
to ensure intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth (European Commission, 2010). Thus,
HEIs have a fundamental role in regional development and significant potential for
development and implementation of the core strategies within the new Cohesion Policy
framework (Kempton et al., 2013).
Over the last decade, various studies have addressed the theme of IC in the public sector
and more specifically HEIs (e.g. Sánchez and Elena, 2006; Sánchez et al., 2009; Lee, 2010;
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Leitner et al., 2014; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Veltri
et al., 2014; Secundo et al., 2015; Ramirez-Córcoles et al., 2016). There have correspondingly
been various initiatives implemented in relation to measuring HEIs’ IC. Among these, we can
highlight the models of IC reporting for Austrian universities (Leitner et al., 2001; Leitner,
2004); Observatory of European Universities (OEU) (Sánchez and Elena, 2006); ICU Report
(Sánchez et al., 2009); Analytic hierarchy process (Lee, 2010); Fuzzy expert system (FES)
(Veltri et al., 2014); IC model for universities (Leitner et al., 2014); Intellectual capital maturity
model (ICMM) (Secundo et al., 2015); as well as the studies by Ramírez-Córcoles et al. (2012),
Ramírez-Córcoles et al. (2013), Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo (2014), among others.
JIC There have been diverse and different categorisations of OIC over time. However, the
20,3 tripartite classification is the one most commonly applied in the leading literature, as
recognised by various authors (e.g. Leitner, 2004; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2007; Sánchez
et al., 2009; Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo,
2014). This triad brings together human capital, structural capital and relational capital.
The literature provides various methods to identify, measure, interpret and evaluate the
362 respective components of OIC in HEIs. However, we find that all these authors consider the
components of human capital, structural capital and relational capital, with the exception of
the model developed by Leitner et al. (2014), which also considers process capital.
The literature review demonstrates that a growing number of organisations release their
IC reports, but as Bezhani (2010) highlights, the still limited number of reports does not
enable analysis that might result in statistical generalisations or the identification of trends.
Comparisons are thus not possible and there is a need to draft a core group of indicators to
enable comparisons among different organisations, in this specific case, among the HEIs of
different countries, and also to develop measurement indicators appropriate to each type of
organisation (e.g. focusing on teaching, research, entrepreneurship, innovation and the
transfer of technology and knowledge).
Leitner et al. (2014) mention how the different components of IC may take on different
meanings and roles depending on the type of HEI, thus triggering the need to consider not
only the type of HEI, but also its different stakeholders, given that their needs for
information about intangible assets and IC are different. The same authors highlight that for
each HEI, there should be a set of indicators that respond to the needs of management, and
therefore, circumscribed to that particular institution; subsequently, a second set of
indicators specific to higher education and the different fields of the respective faculties and
departments; and, finally, shared indicators common to all HEIs.
According to the literature, human capital can be measured according to the typology
(e.g. Leitner and Warden, 2004; Ramírez-Córcoles, 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013;
Leitner et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015), capabilities and
competences (e.g. Leitner and Warden, 2004; Lee, 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013;
Veltri et al., 2014), efficiency (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009; Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles
et al., 2013), and the training of all staff (e.g. Leitner and Warden, 2004; Lee, 2010; Ramírez-
Córcoles et al., 2013; Leitner et al., 2014) students and alumni (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009;
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015).
In relation to structural capital, it can be stated that the majority of indicators are divided
into two types of capital: organisational capital (e.g. Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013;
Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015), made up of administrative structures,
academic and research structures (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009; Lee, 2010), organisational
structures (e.g. Lee, 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012), financial/budgetary structures (e.g.
Leitner and Warden, 2004), innovation and strategic development structures (e.g. Secundo
et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Veltri et al., 2014); and technological capital (e.g.
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012, 2013; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015), in the
form of infrastructures and equipment, (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2009) innovation and R&D
activities (e.g. Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012).
In what concerns relational capital, it can be measured through areas of action that span the
different political, social, cultural and environmental (internal and external) commitments
(e.g. Leitner and Warden, 2004; Lee, 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles et al.,
2013; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015); external cooperation/collaboration
(external financial support, partnerships with other HEIs and public/ private organisations,
signing of contracts) (e.g. Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2009; Lee, 2010;
Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Leitner et al., 2014); development of networks (digital,
education and research networks) (e.g. Secundo et al., 2010; Leitner et al., 2014; Veltri et al., 2014;
teaching efficiency (e.g. Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Intellectual
Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014); image and public understanding of science (e.g. capital of HEIs
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Leitner et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano,
2015); relations with the external environment (including international, academic, institutional
and research dimensions) (e.g. Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2009; Lee, 2010;
Secundo et al., 2010; Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2012; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014;
Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2013; Veltri et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 363
2015); and knowledge transfer (through setting up a friendly framework for the creation of
academic spin-offs producing knowledge, technology and qualified human resources) (e.g.
Leitner and Warden, 2004; Sánchez et al., 2009; Ramírez-Córcoles and Gordillo, 2014; Leitner
et al., 2014; Ramirez-Corcoles and Manzaneque-Lizano, 2015).

4.2 Case study approach

This item deploys a case study approach as deemed appropriate whenever researchers seek
to carry holistic and in-depth research of complex phenomena (Yin, 1994), as is the case
when trying to explore the HEIs’ organisational IC (Mouritsen, 2006; Veltri and Silvestri,
2015). In order to ensure a diversified sample able to provide the scope for comparison and
thereby enabling further theoretical development (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), we performed
a multiple exploratory case study involving the selection of four different HEIs. The HEIs
considered are: the University of Lisbon (HEIs1); the University of Porto (HEIs2), New
University of Lisbon (HEIs3) and the Polytechnic Institute of Porto (HEIs4). The choice of
these HEIs reflects two factors: having IC-related scorecards in their strategic plans and/or
annual activity reports for 2015; their relevance in terms of their total student numbers in
the universe of Portuguese state HEIs according to data collected from the website of the
DGEEC – the General Directorate of Education and Science Statistics[2] for the 2015–2016
academic year.
The criterion used to select these four HEIs was the size of their student population, as
they are four of the largest Portuguese HEIs, accounting for 39 per cent of all students in
state higher education in Portugal. In addition, these four HEIs provide the elements of
planning and respective scorecards that allow the proposal of indicators and subsequent
prospective analysis, also highlighting that for some institutions that information was not
structured in a suitable way for this analysis to be viable.
In order to prioritise the IC indicators, the proposed methodological structure contains
three different stages: in Stage 1, the case file for each particular HEI under study is
produced, taking into consideration their Strategic Plans and/or Activity Reports published
for the 2015 financial year. With this purpose and for greater systematic consistency, we
considered five columns for these case files, specifically: the BSC perspective; strategic
objectives; specific objectives; identification code (HEIs/perspective/Sequential no.) of each
indicator; and the measurement indicators. As regards the BSC perspectives, following
analysis of all the documents, we decided to opt for a subdivision incorporating four
perspectives: financing; resources; processes; and students. The first stage aims to compare
the indicators reported for all of the documents analysed, systematically organising and
comparing them with the indicators previously identified in the literature, taking into
account the goal of ascertaining the most significant indicators; in Stage 2, within the
framework of analysing their applicability and the effective relevance of the measuring
process, analysis focuses on identifying any gaps and shortcomings in the importance of the
individual indicators and their levels of implementation, through carrying out an interview
with a fixed script and applying a questionnaire to members of the board/senior
management in each of the four HEIs, who also contributed towards the processes of
drafting the Strategic Plans and Activity Reports, in order to determine the importance of
each indicator. Choosing the methodological instrument of the interview is justified by
JIC wanting to avoid the possibility of the answers of those involved being influenced by the
20,3 others, rather than what could occur if using alternatives such as the focus group and
participant observations; and in Stage 3, the constant influence/dependence of the indicators
in the matrix generated through application of the MICMAC method is assessed.
4.2.1 Stage 1: producing the case file. After producing the case files, we can report that
the resources perspective and the processes perspective are common to all. As regards the
364 total number of indicators included, this varies depending on the institution with the four
HEIs providing a collective total of 96 indicators, oscillating between 26 (the maximum) and
23 (the minimum) indicators per institution. Figure 2 presents a bar chart showing the total
number of indicators per perspective, while Figure 3 shows the distribution of perspectives
and their respective indicators for each HEI.
After grouping all the indicators, whether by type of capital (human, structural and
relational) or by perspective, taking into consideration the results returned by the
measurement indicators incorporated in the HEI SCCs in the multiple case study, we
removed repeated indicators and regrouped those indicators that, irrespective of their
differences, measure the same concept. Additionally, we excluded certain specific indicators
as they did not appear either suitably relevant or necessary to evaluate the IC of HEIs.
Table I details the SCC implemented for the IC of HEIs and demonstrates the results of
reducing the number of indicators from 96 to 52.
4.2.2 Stage 2: drafting and applying the questionnaire, and categorising the indicators.
This stage consists of the following: holding an interview with members of the board/senior
management of the selected HEIs with the objective of defining and categorising the key
indicators presented in the Scorecard featured in Table I after drafting a script and a
questionnaire made up of both open and closed questions; and analysis of the results
through selection and categorisation of the levels of importance of the data gathered from
the field research.
Sample definition. As regards the members selected for interview, we contacted the
director(s)/dean(s) of HEI1, HEI2, HEI3 and HEI4. Selection of these interviewees involved
ascertaining their direct involvement in drafting processes for the Strategic Plans and
Activity Reports of their respective institutions. The first contact took place via telephone in
February 2017. Subsequently, and without any need to carry out in-person interviews, we
sent out the Script and Questionnaire via e-mail to the respective director/dean and gathered
responses in the same way.
Results obtained. For the closed questions, applying a scale of 1 to 7, (1 ¼ not important;
7 ¼ extremely important), we obtained the average for each indicator, with these then
subject to the following classification: average ¼ 1 and o3.50 unimportant (PI); average ⩾
3.5 and o 5 averagely important (MI); average ⩾ 5 and o6.5 important (I); average ⩾6.5
and ¼ 7 extremely important (EI). This returned a total of 18 results classified as EI (SICH5,
SICH6, SICH10, SICH12, ECE17, ECE18, ECE25, SECR30, SECR31, SECR33, SECR34,
SECR35, SECR40, SECR41, SECR43, SECR45, ARECH47 and ARECH50) and two averagely
important (SICH13 and SICH15) with the remainder deemed important with no factor
receiving the classification of unimportant.
4.2.3 Stage 3: strategic prospective analysis through the MICMAC methodology. To
deepen the analysis detailed above, we developed an analytical matrix with the indicators
previously identified and selected, for example “MI”, “I” and “EI”, based on the MICMAC
methodology. This phase consists of identifying the key indicators, i.e. those essential to
develop the system. This identification primarily takes place through direct classification and,
subsequently, through indirect classification – the aforementioned MICMAC, i.e. “Matrix of
Crossed Impacts – Multiplications Applied to a Classification”. This indirect classification
stems from elevating the initial matrix by the corresponding power (Godet and Durance, 2011).
 Intellectual
Perspective 4 Students 1 capital of HEIs

Perspective 3 Processes 59

Perspective 2 Resources 31 365

Perspective 1 Financial 5 Figure 2.

Counting the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
indicators for each
perspective
Source: Own elaboration

Perspective 4 Students 0
Perspective 3 Processes 10
HEI4

Perspective 2 Resources 12
Perspective 1 Financial 2
Perspective 4 Students 0
Perspective 3 Processes 13
HEI3

Perspective 2 Resources 12
Perspective 1 Financial 1
Perspective 4 Students 1
Perspective 3 Processes 16
HEI2

Perspective 2 Resources 4
Perspective 1 Financial 2
Perspective 4 Students 0
Perspective 3 Processes 20
HEI1

Perspective 2 Resources 3 Figure 3.

Distribution of the
Perspective 1 Financial 0 perspectives and their
0 5 10 15 20
respective indicators
per HEI
Source: Own elaboration

According to the same authors, the matrix needs to be completed by more than one
participant and also requires thorough knowledge of the system under analysis. Therefore,
the direct impact matrix rests upon a direct influence matrix and follows a triangulation
approach counting on the participation of three researchers who each complete the matrix
separately. Each researcher classified the impact of the indicators in a column over the aligned
indicators, ruling out the occurrence of any impact on themselves. To this end, we deployed
the following scale: 0 ¼ no impact; 1 ¼ small impact; 2 ¼ moderate impact; 3 ¼ strong impact;
and P ¼ potential impact. In order to form the final direct impact matrix, this incorporated the
factors most cited by the three participants (mode). Where there were divergences and
differences, the three researchers discussed and analysed the case until reaching a consensus.
According to Godet and Durance (2011), prospective analysis is a pre-active and
pro-active anticipatory tool that clarifies the present action based on the possible and
desirable future vision. Alternatively expressed, having a prospective attitude means
controlling the expected change (being pre-active), and causing a desired change
JIC Indicator code (perspective/
20,3 IC/sequential no.)a Indicator

Financial perspective
Staff
FCH1 Ratio: expenditure on staff in relation to total expenditure
Technology
366 FCE2 Ratio: expenditure on IT and communication in relation to total expenditure
R&D activities
FCE3 Ratio: expenditure on scientific journals in relation to total R&D expenditure
FCE4 Ratio: funding for third parties (public and private) for R&D in relation to total
financing
Internal stakeholder perspective
Staff
SICH5 Capacity for leadership
SICH6 Capacity for team working
SICH7 Average age of staff (lecturers and researchers, administrative staff )
SICH8 Total no. of staff/researchers/administrative staff by gender
Lecturers and researchers
SICH9 Total ratio of lecturers/researchers per student
SICH10 Academic and professional qualifications of lecturers/researchers
Administrative staff
SICH11 Academic and professional qualifications of administrative staff
Students
SICH12 Total ratio of doctoral, master’s and undergraduate degree students in relation
to the total no. of students
SICH13 Total no. of students
SICH14 No. of new students enroled in the current academic year
SICH15 No. of student complaints
Alumni
SICH16 No. registered alumni (national and international)
Structural perspective
Organisational capital
ECE17 Mission, vision and values, strategic and operational processes
ECE18 Management and organisation of teaching activities (academic networks,
international staff exchange programs, teaching incentives, innovation in
education provision, teaching programs in different languages, among others)
ECE19 Management and organisation of R&D activities (strategic planning of R&D
activities, internal and external communication of research results, efficient
management of research projects, incentives for research, theses defended,
incentives for scientific outputs, dynamics of multidisciplinary research groups,
R&D activities with cross-fertilisation among scientific fields, research
commissioned by industry, among others)
ECE20 Total no. of citations of publications by teaching and research staff
ECE21 Total no. of publications authored and co-authored, by scientific field
ECE22 Support installations and material resources (no. of libraries, no. of books
available in the library, no. of computers per academic/student/administrative
staff, among others)
ECE23 No. of scientific, cultural and social events organised
ECE24 No. of national/international awards and prizes received
ECE25 No. of evaluation, qualification, accreditation and external certification processes
Technological capital
ECE26 No. of research/incubation and laboratory infrastructures
ECE27 No. of IT places
Table I.
IC scorecard for HEIs (continued )
Indicator code (perspective/
Intellectual
IC/sequential no.)a Indicator capital of HEIs

External stakeholder perspective

Political, social, cultural and environmental commitments
SECR28 % of students with special needs
SECR29 Ecological footprint 367
Cooperation/external collaboration
SECR30 Total no of cooperation contracts/agreements/protocols existing (teaching/
research) with public and private and national and international organisations
Teaching efficiency
SECR31 % of academic dropouts
SECR32 % of graduates (undergraduate, master’s and doctoral degrees)
Image
SECR33 Doctoral degree programs with official mention of quality
SECR34 Image/opinion/reputation of HEIs (society, media, among others) at the regional,
national and international levels
Relations with the exterior
SECR35 No. of lecturers/researchers attending international conferences
SECR36 No. of company internships undertaken by students
SECR37 Relations with society (no. of positions on public management/governance/civic
participation/consultancy/and accreditation entities and social forums or
specialist negotiation and/or discussion bodies)
SECR38 Students satisfaction (with studies, services, infrastructures, among others)
SECR39 Existence and management of evaluation processes for the satisfaction of
employers with graduate training and education
SECR40 No. of international students (undergraduate, master’s and doctoral degrees)
and on post-graduate programs
SECR41 No. of guest international speakers per learning programs
SECR42 No. of countries with ongoing development collaboration with the HEIs
SECR43 % of lecturers/researchers who obtained their PhDs in other institutions
SECR44 % of lecturers/researchers with positions at scientific journals, scientific panels,
among others
SECR45 % of students enroled in their first option in relation to the total no. of places on
offer
SECR46 Waiting time before graduates secure their first job
Learning, renovation and entrepreneurship perspective
Lecturers and researchers
ARECH47 No. of lecturers with career aggregation
ARECH48 No. of teaching/research missions by lecturers/researchers in international
institutions
Administrative staff
ARECH49 No. of hours of training attended by administrative staff
R&D activities
ARECH50 No. of participations in research projects
ARECE51 Intellectual property (no. of national and international patents; brands; models
of utility; prototypes; copyrights, No. of licences; among others)
ARECR52 No. of academic spin-offs launched annually
Notes: aF: financial; SI: internal stakeholders; E: structural; SE: external stakeholders; ARE: learning,
renovation and entrepreneurship; CH: human capital; CE: structural capital (organisational or process); CR:
relational capital; 1, …, 52: sequential number attributed to each indicator
Source: Own elaboration Table I.

(being pro-active). As a social science subject (Fierro, 2015), and despite the scarcity of
studies in the literature using prospective analysis in the HEI context, we highlight
some studies on IC that have already deployed this approach (Fried and Linss, 2005), and
more specifically with HEIs (Elena-Pérez et al., 2011; Serna, 2013; Munar et al., 2014).
JIC Elena-Pérez et al. (2011) approach the specificities of the Romanian higher education
20,3 system, stating the possibility of combining foresight techniques and IC management, as
benchmarking tools for ensuring participative strategic management in HEIs.
Serna (2013) addresses the concepts of foresight and strategic management of knowledge
and their role in developing research groups integrated into the Colombian HEIs. In this line
of action, the author advocates that foresight should be associated with specific actions
368 within systems of competitive intelligence and technology surveillance, for identifying the
most relevant variables for developing the research groups, calling also for the
incorporation of strategic management of technology, innovation and knowledge within
those groups, in the Colombian context.
Munar et al. (2014) provide an attempt to measure IC (considering as in the current
analysis, the same three main components, namely: human capital; structural capital; and
relational capital) at the university level, presenting an innovative application to the case of
the University of Atacama, located in Chile. For this purpose, the authors develop a
prospective analytical exercise for a ten years period ahead, using the Delphi methodology,
which was complemented by the use of a qualitative profiling approach, considering a series
of exogenous variables.
The strategic prospective analysis now presented is different from the three studies
previously mentioned, since it is based on a MICMAC approach that consists of the design and
subsequent application of impact matrixes, which list the items generating impacts and their
connections with each other, before returning estimates of the strength of the impact of each
item in terms of each remaining variable included in the respective prospective analytical
exercise. The MICMAC method attempts to quantify the importance of each item impacting
within a determined system (Fried and Linss, 2005). With the assistance of easy to understand
tables and graphs, each item displays an indicator of influence and an indicator of dependence
with the positioning of the variable or indicator in the plan enabling the differentiation
between five particular types of variable (Godet and Durance, 2011), as set out in Figure 4.
According to Godet and Durance (2011), the input variables (Zone 1) are highly
influential and with low levels of dependence, primarily considered as explanatory variables
for the system under study, and should therefore be subject to priority actions in that they
condition the prevailing dynamics in the system. The intermediate variables (Zone 2) are
simultaneously very influential, very dependent and thus unstable. The resultant variables
(Zone 3) exert little influence and are very dependent. The evolution derives from the
consequences of the impacts generated by other items. The variables excluded (Zone 4) are
those susceptible to exclusion on the grounds of reporting low levels of both dependence
and influence, especially the input and intermediate variables. The clustered variables
(Zone 5) do not display any defined characteristics in terms of either their influence or their
dependence and hence we may reach conclusions about their role in the system and are thus
deemed worthy of continued consideration.

5. Presentation and analysis of results

Based on the results from completion of the MICMAC matrix, Figure 5 displays the four
quadrants in the influence/dependence matrix, together with a general panorama of the
direct influences of the respective indicators in Figure 6.
According to Figure 5, in Zone 1, we encounter the input indicators, also designated power
indicators. These are considered the key factors of the HEI IC system, and are hence
influential indicators. These indicators have the greatest importance, given their power to
influence the main indicators throughout all of the system and reflect little or no dependence
on the other indicators. Thus, such indicators need to be taken into consideration for the
success of any prospective strategic plans for the IC of HEIs. Only one indicator emerged in
 Influence Intellectual
capital of HEIs

1 2 369
Input Variables Intermediate Variables
Average Influence

5
Clustered Variables

3
Resultant Variables
4
Excluded Variables

Figure 4.
Different types of
Average Dependence Dependence variable for influence
and dependence
Source: Godet and Durance (2011, p. 65)

Direct influence/dependence map

SECR34

SECR38

ECE19

SICH15 SICH13

SECR42 SICH12
Influence

SICH14 ECE18
SECR33

ECE24
SECR30
SECR32 ECE25
SECR40 ARECH50
SECR44
ECE26
SECR35 SECR37 SECR36
ECE27 ECE21
ARECE51 ECE23
SECR31 SECR46
ARECH48 ECE20
SECR41 ECE17
© LFSO-EDITA-MIC MAC

SICH9
SICH6
ARECH47
ARECR52 ECE22 SICH10
SICH16 FCH1
SICH11 FCE3 FCE4
SECR43 SECR39

SECR45 SICH5 Figure 5.

ARECH49 FCE2
SICH8
Levels of direct
SECR28 SECR29 SICH7
influence and
Dependence dependence of the
indicators
Source: Own elaboration
JIC Direct influence graph
20,3 SECR40 ECE24 SICH12
SICH11
SECR33
ECE22
ECE23 SECR31

ARECH49 SECR44
ECE25 SICH10
370 SICH13

SECR32 SICH9 FCE2

FCH1 SICH5 SICH6
SICH14
ARECH50 SECR37
SECR42 SECR29
ECE17
ECE19 ARECR51
SECR41 FCE4
SECR35 SICH8

© LFSOR-EPITA-MICMAC
ECE27 ARECR52
SICH15
ARECH47
SECR46 ARECH48 SECR38 SECR30 SECR45 SECR36

ECE21 ECE26 FCE3

ECE18 SECR34
SECR39
Figure 6.
Graph of the direct
indicator influences Note: The choice of the 25 per cent option stems from guaranteeing the visibility of the distribution
(25 per cent) within
the system and dispersion of the networks of influence as well as the concentrations or clusters in the network
Source: Own elaboration

this zone, SECR38. This indicator has a direct influence on the behaviours of the group in
which it falls and therefore has to be considered in any potentially successful prospective
strategic planning (González-Cabo et al., 2017).
In Zone 2 (upper right quadrant), the intermediate or conflict indicators span the core
indicators or the targets incorporated in the system. These indicators have high and average
dependence and high and average levels of influence. Every action applied to them will
simultaneously generate repercussions for the other variables and retroactive effects on
them, profoundly shaping the overall dynamics prevailing in the system (Godet and
Durance, 2011). Therefore, according to González-Cabo et al. (2017), these indicators show
the strategic objectives, which require planning in accordance with the IC of HEIs with
consequences for management plans; with these indicators also needing constant
monitoring and surveying. Only one indicator was included in this zone, SECR34.
Zone 3, (lower right quadrant), contains the resultant indicators, which arise from
iteration of the other indicators in the system, showing a low level of influence but high
dependence. However, depending on the means of their influence, there may be diverse
impacts on other variables and hence the latter must be approached with care (Tiwari, 2013).
Table II sets out the seven indicators included in this zone.
Zone 4, (lower left quadrant), contains the exclusion indicators, also referred to as
autonomous, given that they may or may not be subject to exclusion. Their role inside the
system under study has little or no dependence on the other indicators and little or no influence.
This type of indicator is at the service of the system as a whole and thus HEI decision makers
have to decide whether to include them in their development plans as potential factors to
strengthen the main indicators or exclude them from any scorecard. González-Cabo et al. (2017)
state that this type of item almost always represents competitive advantages for the system and
is eligible for exploration and operational implementation in keeping with the characteristics of
each organisation/institution. Table II lists the 23 indicators included in this zone.
Input indicators Intermediate indicators Resultant indicators Exclusion indicators Clustered indicators
Intellectual
capital of HEIs
SECR38 SECR34 FCH1 FCE3 FCE4
FCE2 SICH6 SICH7
SICH5 SICH8 SICH9
SICH10 SICH11 SICH12
ECE17 SICH16 SICH13
ECE25 ECE22 SICH14 371
ARECH47 ECE23 SICH15
ECE27 ECE18
SECR28 ECE19
SECR29 ECE20
SECR31 ECE21
SECR35 ECE24
SECR36 ECE26
SECR39 SECR30
SECR41 SECR32
SECR43 SECR33
SECR44 SECR37
SECR45 SECR40
SECR46 SECR42
ARECH48 ARECH50
ARECH49 Table II.
ARECE51 Distribution of HEI
ARECR52 scorecards indicators
Source: Own elaboration by zones

Zone 5 features all the other indicators, thus, the clustered indicators and those that lack any
defined characteristics in terms of their influence and dependence enabling any conclusions
about the role they play in the system, and they should therefore remain. Table II presents
the 20 indicators included in this zone.
Figure 6 features only those indicators with the greatest direct influence on the system.
According to Godet (1994), analysis exclusively focusing on the direct impact falls short as this
fails to reveal the hidden indicators influencing the issues under study in a camouflaged
fashion. Therefore, the same author suggests extending the analysis to include the indirect
impact of the indicators. This requires comparison of the hierarchy of the indicators in the
indirect classification, enabling confirmation of the importance of some indicators and also
revealing certain indicators that, due to their indirect actions, perform an important role
irrespective of not having previously been subject to identification through the direct
classification. Consequently, comparison between the direct and the indirect classifications
might associate a different timeframe for each of these classifications: the direct classification
results from interactions in the short- and medium-term relationships and with their temporal
horizons generally corresponding to less than a decade; and the indirect classification integrates
the chain reactions that require longer timeframes, extending to between 10 and 15 years.
Observation of Figure 7, showing the evolution of influence, reveals a change in the
positioning of some indicators, when comparing analysis of the direct and indirect influence.
Figure 8 shows the changes in the indicators in a chart of the direct/indirect displacements.
Furthermore, also in accordance with that stipulated by Godet (1994), these changes require
incorporating medium- and long-term timeframes in activity and/or development plans.
As for the indirect analysis, many variables have fairly similar positions even when
changes in the other variables reveal hidden indicators or key hidden influences. Taking
into account the content of the prospective analysis, in comparative terms, Figures 7 and 8,
in Table III systematically present the indicators with a rise equal to or greater than three
JIC Classify variables according to their influences

20,3 Rank
1
Variable
34 – SECR34
Variable
34 – SECR34
2 38 – SECR38 38 – SECR38
3 19 – ECE19 13 – SICH13
4 13 – SICH13 14 – SICH14
5 15 – SICH15 12 – SICH12
6 42 – SECR42 42 – SECR42
372 7 12 – SICH12 33 – SECR33
8 14 – SICH14 15 – SICH15
9 18 – ECE18 32 – SECR32
10 33 – SECR33 30 – SECR30
11 30 – SECR30 40 – SECR40
12 24 – ECE24 19 – ECE19
13 40 – SECR40 37 – SECR37
14 32 – SECR32 36 – SECR36
15 25 – ECE25 24 – ECE24
16 37 – SECR37 50 – ARECH50
17 50 – ARECH50 18 – ECE18
18 26 – ECE26 41 – SECR41
19 21 – ECE21 31 – SECR31
20 35 – SECR35 26 – SECR26
21 36 – SECR36 35 – SECR35
22 51 – ARECE51 25 – ECE25
23 20 – ECE20 27 – ECE27
24 27 – ECE27 51 – ARECE51
25 23 – ECE23 16 – SICH16
26 41 – SECR41 44 – SECR44
27 31 – SECR31 21 – ECE21
28 46 – SECR46 46 – SECR46
29 48 – ARECH48 6 – SICH6
30 6 – SICH6 10 – SICH10
31 17 – ECE17 9 – SICH9
32 44 – SECR44 45 – SECR45
33 10 – SICH10 52 – ARECH52
34 22 – ECE22 20 – ECE20
35 1 – FCH1 23 – ECE23
36 9 – SICH9 48 – ARECH48
37 52 – ARECR52 22 – ECE22
38 47 – ARECH47 47 – ARECH47
39 16 – SICH16 1 – FCH1
40 3 – FCE3 3 – ECE3
41 4 – FCE4 4 – ECE4
42 11 – SICH11 5 – SICH5
43 45 – SECR45 17 – ECE17
44 39 – SECR39 29 – SECR29
45 43 – SECR43 2 – FCE2
46 49 – ARECH49 39 – SECR39
© LFSOR-EPITA-MICMAC

47 2 – FCE2 11 – SICH11
48 5 – SICH5 8 – SICH8
Figure 7. 49 8 – SICH8 43 – SECR43
Classification of the 50 29 – SECR29 49 – ARECH49
indicator influences in 51 7 – SICH7 29 – SECR28
direct terms vs 52 28 – SECR28 7 – SICH7
indirect terms
Source: Own elaboration

positions in the influence ranking as well as those indicators that, while not having reached
this level, nevertheless still show changes in their positioning in the matrix zone.
Table III shows how the rises in the influence ranking highlight those indicators
interrelated with human capital and relational capital. Despite some reporting sharp rises,
 Displacement map: direct/indirect Intellectual
SECR34
capital of HEIs
SECR38

SICH13
ECE19
373
ECE26 SICH12
Influence

SECR42 SICH15
SECR37 ECE27
SICH14 ECE18 ECE24
SECR33 SECR30
SECR32
SECR40 ECE25

ARECE51 ECE21
SECR35 ARECH50
ECE20
SECR36
ARECH48 SECR41 ECE23

© LFSOR-EPITA-MICMAC
ECE17
ARECR52 SECR31
SICH9
SECR44 SICH6 ARECH47
ECE22 SICH10 FCH1
SICH16
SICH11 FCE3
ARECH49 SECR39
SECR28 SECR45 SECR46 FCE4
SECR43 SICH5
Figure 8.
SICH8
FCE2

SECR29
SICH7 Map of the direct vs
Dependence indirect indicator
displacements
Source: Own elaboration

Indicators Zone (Direct → Indirect) Rise in position

FCE2 – 3
FCE3 4→ 5 0
SICH5 – 6
SICH9 5→ 3 5
SICH10 – 3
SICH12 5→ 1 2
SICH13 5→ 1 1
SICH14 5→ 1 4
SICH16 – 14
ECE21 5→ 4 (Down 8)
SECR29 – 6
SECR31 4→ 5 8
SECR32 – 5
SECR33 – 3
SECR36 – 7 Table III.
SECR37 – 3 Indicators with rises
in the influence
SECR41 4→ 5 8
ranking of equal to or
SECR44 – 7 greater than three
SECR45 – 11 positions and/or
ARECR52 – 4 changes in the matrix
Source: Own elaboration positioning

this did not prove sufficient for these indicators to change their position in the matrix
zone, as is the case of the “No. of registered alumni (national and international)”, which
rose 14 positions in relation to its direct influence. As regards those changing zone,
this identified three indicators: “Total ratio of PhD, master and undergraduate degree
students in relation to the total no. of students”; “Total no. of students”; “Total no. of new
students accepted in the current academic year”; and correspondingly all interrelated with
human capital, in particular, with students. Thus, these indicators must be taken into
JIC consideration as in future scenarios (in the medium and long term), they may become
20,3 determinant for evolution of the HEI IC system, i.e. influencers, and deserving particular
attention as they may feasibly in the future take on leading roles in the respective system
in conjunction with “Satisfaction of students (with studies, services, infrastructure, among
others)”, which already falls into Zone 1 and maintains this position. We also highlight
three other indicators that leave the exclusion zone and enter the clustered zone. These are
374 “% of expenditure on scientific journals/total expenditure on R&D activities”, “% of
academic drop-out” and “No. of guest international speakers per learning programme”.
Therefore, these indicators deserve inclusion among the indicators commonly
incorporated in HEI scorecards.
According to the results obtained from the direct and indirect analysis, we can distribute
the indicators into two groups: Group 1 common indicators for inclusion in HEI scorecards.
This contains the indicators that feature in Zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the MICMAC Matrix of
direct impacts plus the three indicators that move from Zone 4 to Zone 5 following the
analysis of indirect impacts, making up a total of 32 items; and Group 2: specific indicators
that require individual analysis by the managers of each HEI in order to ascertain whether
or not these deserve inclusion in the system, with a total of 20 indicators.
Taking the above into consideration, Table IV sets out the final proposal of the 32 common
indicators found through prospective MICMAC analysis, first and foremost grouped by the
type of IC, thus, human capital, structural capital and relational capital, and subsequently by
their level of importance attributed in accordance with the classifications provided by the
directors of the four HEIs participating in the study (EI, important and moderately important).
As a result of the assessment presented above in Table IV, in this research about the
main components of the HEIs’ organisational IC, it is revealed the set of EI indicators, which
are those related with:
(1) The human capital: leadership capacity; academic and professional qualifications of
lecturers/researchers; total ratio of PhD, master and undergraduate degree students
in relation to the total no. of students; number of lecturers with habilitation; number
of participations in research projects.
(2) The structural capital: mission, vision and values, strategic and operational processes;
management and organisation of teaching activities (academic networks, international
staff exchange schemes, incentives for teaching, innovation in the provision of
education, teaching programmes in different languages, among others); number of
external evaluation, qualification, accreditation and certification processes.
(3) The relational capital: total number of existing contracts/agreements for cooperation/
protocols (teaching/research) with public and private, national and international
organisations; percentage of academic drop-out; PhD degree programmes with official
mention of quality; image/opinion/reputation of HEIs (society, media, among others) at
the regional, national and international levels; number of international students
(undergraduate, master and PhD degrees) and on post-graduate programmes; number
of guest international speakers per learning programme.

6. Conclusions, implications and limitations of the study

Based on the several indicators found and recommended in the literature review, after a
multiple case study, conducted in four Portuguese HEIs, 52 indicators were determined (see
Table I). After a prospective analysis using MICMAC software, these 52 indicators were
divided by zones, according to their importance and distribution in a prospective view,
identifying 29 common indicators (input indicators, intermediate indicators, resultant
indicators and clustered indicators), which should be part of the development plans of the
 Indicator
Intellectual
IC code Common indicators Classification capital of HEIs
Human SICH5 Leadership capacity EI
capital SICH10 Academic and professional qualifications of lecturers/researchers
SICH12 Total ratio of doctoral, master’s and undergraduate degree students in
relation to the total no. of students
ARECH47 No. of lecturers with career aggregation 375
ARECH50 No. of participations in research projects
FCH1 Ratio: expenditure on staff in relation to total expenditure I
SICH7 Average age of staff (lecturers and researchers, administrative staff )
SICH9 % de lecturers/researchers/total students (average of lecturers/
researchers per student)
SICH14 No. of new students accepted in the current academic year
SICH13 Total no. of students MI
SICH15 No. of student complaints
Structural ECE17 Mission, vision and values, strategic and operational processes EI
capital ECE18 Management and organisation of teaching activities (academic networks,
international staff exchange schemes, incentives for teaching, innovation
in the provision of education, teaching programs in different languages,
among others)
ECE25 No. of external evaluation, qualification, accreditation and certification
processes
FCE2 Ratio: expenditure on IT and communication in relation to total I
expenditure
FCE3 Ratio: expenditure on scientific journals in relation to total R&D
expenditure
FCE4 Ratio: third party (public and private) funding for R&D in relation to total
financing
ECE19 Management and organisation of R&D activities (strategic planning of
R&D activities, internal and external communication of research results,
efficient management of research projects, incentives for research, theses
defended, incentives for scientific production, dynamics of
multidisciplinary research groups, R&D activities with cross-fertilisation
among scientific fields, research commissioned by industry, among others)
ECE20 Total no. of citations of publications by lecturers and researchers
ECE21 Total no. of publications authored and co-authored by scientific field
ECE24 No. of national/international awards received
ECE26 No. of research infrastructures/incubators and laboratories
Relational SECR30 Total no. of existing contracts/agreements for cooperation/protocols EI
capital (teaching/research) with public and private, national and international
organisations
SECR31 % of school abandoning
SECR33 Doctoral degree programs with official mention of quality
SECR34 Image/opinion/reputation of HEIs (society, media, among others) at the
regional, national and international levels
SECR40 No. of international students (undergraduate, master’s and doctoral
degrees) and on post-graduate programs
SECR41 No. of guest international speakers per learning programme.
SECR32 % of graduates (undergraduate, master’s and doctoral degrees) I
SECR37 Relationships with society (no. of positions held on management/
governance bodies/civic participation/consultancies/accreditation/social
or specialist forums for negotiation and/or discussion)
SECR38 Student satisfaction (with studies, services, infrastructures, among
others) Table IV.
SECR42 No. of countries with ongoing collaboration with the HEI Proposed indicators
Notes: EI, extremely important; I, important; MI, moderately important for evaluating the IC
Source: Own elaboration of HEIs
JIC HEIs, that is, of the so-called scorecards; and 23 specific indicators (exclusion indicators),
20,3 which should be analysed in individual terms and then considered in the elaboration of the
development plan according to the strategic orientation pursued by each HEI (see Table II).
Taking as reference the results obtained in this study, the following highlights are identified:
(1) The indicators deserving greatest attention lie in the field of relational capital:
student satisfaction and HEI image need priority attention and inclusion in
376 activity plans and annual operational plans, given that attracting new students (PhD
and master degrees, post-graduate, training and lifelong qualification trainees in
addition to undergraduates) must be integrated into long-term strategic planning
as in the future, indicators reflecting student numbers (ratio: PhD, master and
undergraduate degree students in relation to the total no. of students; total no. of
students; total no. of new students accepted in that academic year) will shape the
development of the entire system.
(2) Long-term strategic plans should also pay particular attention to the other indicators
set out in Table III, especially those that transfer to higher profile zones: the indicators
for “ratio: expenditure on scientific journals in relation to total R&D expenditure”, the
“% of academic drop-out” and the “No. of guest international speakers per learning
program” that move from Zone 4 to Zone 5. Those that while not changing zone still
show sharp increases in the direct/indirect influence ranking, such as “No. of alumni
registered (national and international)” and “% of students enrolled in their first option
in relation to the total no. of places available” also need careful monitoring and
attention as their development may be extremely relevant in the future.
(3) Hence, a broader vision of the impact of these indicators on others may provide HEIs
with benefits in the long term. The results of this research are also important for
HEIs managers, especially as regards designing and producing future strategic
development and growth plans for HEIs, using the indicators proposed here,
incorporating the vision of stakeholders, within the scope of drafting a framework of
evaluation and shared responsibility, with their indicators subject to adjustment on
an annual basis in a dynamic and contingent approach.
These indicators are directly linked with HEIs’ development/growth and require analysis
by different institutions in diverse ways. For example, a university that is currently losing
students or not increasing their number needs to foster a strategy designed to attract new
students. In medium- and long-term development plans, such HEIs need to deploy
strategies to attract new national and international students. However, when these HEIs
lack the preparation necessary to receive more students, this growth might remain
conditioned by other internal and external factors such as: the number of lecturers; the
number of classrooms and IT facilities; social infrastructure, accommodation and the
socioeconomic conditions of source student households. Consequently, the number of
students has an influence (directly or indirectly) on other indicators that also deserve
consideration in future strategy plans. A university that already has a large number of
students and which, from the outset, does not need strategies designed to bring in more,
should instead focus on the development of other indicators that generate competitive
advantages in relation to their peer institutions, for example, developing research,
internationalisation and innovation.
This study applies innovation to the definition of indicators for consideration in IC
studies as it follows a prospective approach with insights able to make a still greater impact
on the future of HEIs when taking into account analysis of the indirect impacts, as well as
the resulting implications, especially as regards satisfaction and the total number of
students at HEIs, as these variables have the greatest influence on the system.
 In terms of policy implications, the design of a formal programme for charting, Intellectual
recognising and monitoring the IC of HEIs is recommended, to enable the setting out of tools capital of HEIs
for future strategic management, both prospective and operational, by these organisations.
This should take into account specific characteristics related to the intangible nature of their
resources, capacities and the competences allocated to the production of intangible
knowledge assets. These in turn need greater monitoring in order to ensure their effective
protection, valuation and transfer according to a new paradigm of open collaboration 377
founded on the IC of nations, organisations and individuals.
Joint analysis of those indicators leads to implications regarding the need to design and
implement new public policies, namely: launching transnational cooperation programmes
involving public and private organisations; behavioural and emotional programmes to
combat academic drop-out, promoting integration, soft skills and behavioural competences,
success and employability; creating international PhD programmes with recognised
certification and international quality; and designing worldwide student mobility
programmes. Adoption of these new public policies is EI to strengthen the three main
components of IC in HEIs: human (HC); structural (SC); and relational (RC) capital.
As reported by Munar et al. (2014) this type of prospective analysis opens a future exploration
avenue about the intangible resources that need further measurement, improvement and
certification. In this sense, bearing in mind the proposal of indicators, the current findings provide
a number of managerial implications, namely: creation of enablement programmes for leadership
and qualification of lecturers and researchers; creation of pedagogical training programmes;
creation of seed capital programmes for research projects; implementation of business process
management (BPM) programmes and quality certification of the different processes and
procedures of academic management; and creation of a programme to assess satisfaction and
strengthen the quality of academic life. These implications for operational management of HEIs
are justified by strengthening HC and SC. However, regarding the latter, the analysis provided
important insights into the need to define formally and revisit dynamically the mission, vision,
values, strategic processes and operational procedures, as a prospective mechanism to anticipate
change. As previously advocated by Serna (2013), the prospective exercises and analyses need to
be connected to specific actions in systems, with the eventual incorporation of strategic
management of technology, innovation and knowledge within institutions.
The case study approach covering only four Portuguese HEIs might emerge as a
limitation of the study, concerning the generalisation of results. However, the indicators
used as a reference in drafting the IC Scorecard for HEIs relate to studies undertaken in
diverse countries and covering many different HEIs, which guarantees a certain level of
complementary diversity in the indicators.
The MICMAC method also poses certain limitations. Because of its qualitative nature,
subjectivity plays a role here and there is no single reading of the results as they stem from
the participants’ interpretations. Additionally, the fact that the influence matrix was filled in
by three researchers belonging to the same HEI may emerge as a limitation. However, all
participants in this study phase are experts in HEI management related issues not only due
to the managerial roles already held (board members and deans of faculty) but also due to
the various studies already undertaken within this framework with two participants having
already worked and/or carried out an internship at other national and international
institutions and are thus aware of more than one situation.
This suggests that future research on this issue deserve to be expanded for including
HEIs from other countries and in conjunction with the support of experts in managing and
running those same HEIs. Recovering the view of Omran et al. (2014), a classical structural
analysis, as a method of extended analysis to futures, always depends on a small group of
participants, not efficient in terms of time, costs and human resources allocated; being based
on a single value, that is, the present knowledge. Thus, a final recommendation word is
JIC dedicated to policy-makers and managers, who should focus their future endeavours on the
20,3 identification, in prospective terms, of influential and dependent drivers for the components
of the IC that interact with the sustainable performance of HEIs.

Notes
1. Entrepreneurship includes indicators of entrepreneurship (e.g. the academic spin-offs created, etc.) and
378 intra-entrepreneurship (e.g. innovative capacities of staff, training supplied to staff and by staff, etc.).
2. www.dgeec.mec.pt, consulted on 20 December 2016.

References
Bezhani, I. (2010), “Intellectual capital reporting at UK universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 179-207.
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and
models”, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76, available at: http://doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810204142
Chatterton, P. and Goddard, J. (2000), “The response of higher education institutions to regional needs”,
European Journal of Education, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 475-496.
Chevaillier, T. (2002), “Higher education and its clients: institutional responses to changes in demand
and in environment”, Higher Education, Vol. 44 Nos 3/4, pp. 303-308, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019802608400
Cong, X. and Pandya, K.V. (2003), “Issues of knowledge management in the public sector”, Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 25-33.
Daniels, H. and Noordhuis, H. (2005), “Project selection based on intellectual capital scorecards”,
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-32, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.231
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Drucker, J. (2015), “Reconsidering the regional economic development impacts of higher education
institutions in the United States”, Regional Studies, January, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 1185-1202,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.986083
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997), “Intellectual capital: realizing your company’s true value by
finding its hidden brainpower”, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Elena-Pérez, S., Saritas, O., Pook, K. and Warden, C. (2011), “Ready for the future? Universities’
capabilities to strategically manage their intellectual capital”, Foresight, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 31-48, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14636681111126238
European Commission (2003), “The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge”,
Communication from the Commission of 5 February, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/PT/TXT/?uri=URISERV:c11067
European Commission (2006), “RICARDIS: reporting intellectual capital to augment research,
development and innovation in SMEs,”, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/
download_en/2006-2977_web1.pdf
European Commission (2010), Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.
COM (2010) 2020 Final, CEC, Brussels.
Fierro, G.G. (2015), “Strategic prospective methodology to explore sustainable futures”,
Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, Vol. 11 No. 11, pp. 606-614, available at:
http://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6583/2015.11.005
Fried, A. and Linss, V. (2005), “Towards an advanced impact analysis of intangible resources in
organizations (BWL IX No. 2)”, papers and preprints of the Department of Innovation Research
and Sustainable Resource Management, Chemnitz.
Godet, M. (1979), “The crisis in forecasting and the emergence of the ‘prospective’ approach”, Intellectual
in Pearse, J.D. and Lennon, H.K. (Eds), With case studies in Energy and Air Transport, Pergamon capital of HEIs
Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-136.
Godet, M. (1994), From Anticipation to Action, UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Godet, M. and Durance, P. (2011), A Prospectiva Estratética, UNESCO – Ornanização das Nações
Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura, Paris, available at: http://pt.laprospective.fr/dyn/
traductions/contents/findunod-godet-durance-ext-vpt.pdf 379
González-Cabo, V., Murgueitio, M., Cruz Caicedo, L.F., Burbano-Vallejo, E.L. and Moreno, E. (2017),
“Application of structural analysis for local development in the center region of Valle del
Cauca, Colombia”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 289-320, available at: http://doi.org/DOI:10.1007/s12208-017-0173-3
Kamath, G.B. (2007), “The intellectual capital performance of the Indian banking sector”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 96-123, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/
14691930710715088
Kempton, L., Goddard, J., Edwards, J., Hegyi, F.B. and Elena-Pérez, S. (2013), “Universities and smart
specialisation”, European Commission, S3 Policy Brief Series No. 03/2013 Louise, Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, available at: http://doi.org/10.2791/52851
Kok, A. (2007), “Intellectual capital management as part of knowledge management initiatives at institutions
of higher learning”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 181-192.
Laredo, P. (2007), “Revisiting the third mission of universities: toward a renewed categorization of
university activities?”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-456, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169
Lee, S.-H. (2010), “Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual capital evaluation model for assessing their
performance contribution in a university”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 7,
pp. 4941-4947, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.020
Leitner, K.H. (2004), “Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and
application for Austrian universities”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 129-140.
Leitner, K.H. and Warden, C. (2004), “Managing and reporting knowledge-based resources and processes
in research organisations: specifics, lessons learned and perspectives”, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-51, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2003.10.005
Leitner, K.-H., Sammer, M., Graggober, M., Schartinger, D. and Zielowski, C. (2001), “Wissensbilanzierung
für Universitäten”, Seibersdorf Research, Auftragsprojekt für das Bundesministerium für
Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kunst, Wien, pp. 1-86.
Leitner, K.-H., Curaj, A., Elena-Perez, S., Fazlagic, J., Kalemis, K., Martinaitis, Z., Secundo, G., Sicilia, M.-A.
and Zaksa, K. (2014), “A strategic approach for intellectual capital management in European
universities”, in Leitner, K. and Curaj, A. (Eds), Guidelines for Implementation, UEFISCDI
Blueprints Series, Bucharest, pp. 1-94.
Maanen, J.V. (1979), “Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface”,
Qualitative Methodology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 520-526.
Mainardes, E., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2013), “Identifying Stakeholders in a Portuguese university: a
case study La identificación de los stakeholders en una universidad portuguesa”, Revista de
Educación, Vol. 362, pp. 10-12, available at: http://doi.org/10-4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-362-167
Mouritsen, J. (2006), “Problematising intellectual capital research: ostensive versus performative IC”,
Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 820-841, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610709881
Munar, J.L.S., Urbina, B.P. and Cortés, C. (2014), “Valoración prospectiva del capital intelectual de la
Universidad de Atacama, mediante la técnica Delphi”, Ingeniare. Revista Chilena de Ingeniería,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 567-575.
OEU (2006), Methodological Guide, PRIME, ed., Observatory of the European University, Lugano.
JIC Omran, A., Khorish, M. and Saleh, M. (2014), “Structural analysis with knowledge-based
20,3 MICMAC approach”, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 39-43,
http://doi.org/10.5120/14985-3290
Pedro, E., Leitão, J. and Alves, H. (2018), “Back to the future of intellectual capital research: a systematic
literature review”, Management Decision, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 2502-2583, available at: http://doi.
org/10.1108/MD-08-2017-0807
380 Rahman, M.S. (2017), “The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative
approaches and methods in language ‘testing and assessment’ research: a literature review”, Journal
of Education and Learning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 102-112, available at: http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y. (2012), “Towards improved information disclosure on intellectual capital in
Spanish universities”, Global Journal of Human Social Science, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1-17.
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y. and Gordillo, S.B. (2014), “Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in
Spanish universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 173-188, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2013-0058
Ramirez-Corcoles, Y. and Manzaneque-Lizano, M. (2015), “The relevance of intellectual capital
disclosure: empirical evidence from Spanish universities”, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 31-44, available at: http://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.27
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Lorduy, C. and Rojas, J. (2007), “Intellectual capital management in
Spanish universities”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 732-748, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/14691930710830873
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Peñalver, J. and Ponce, Á. (2011), “Intellectual capital in Spanish public
universities: stakeholders’ information needs”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 356-376, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14691931111154689
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Ponce, A.T. and Vanderdonckt, J. (2013), “How to respond to information needs of
university stakeholders: proposal of indicators for reporting on intellectual capital”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, Vol. III No. 3, pp. 1-29.
Ramirez-Córcoles, Y., Tejada, A. and Manzaneque, M. (2016), “The value of disclosing intellectual
capital in Spanish universities”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 176-198, available at: http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230910978511
Ramírez-Córcoles, Y., Tejada, Á., Baidez, A. and Montero, F. (2012), “Managing intellectual capital:
conceptual background and application for European higher education institutions”, The 6yh
International Conference on Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific, Shanghai, pp. 1-8.
Sánchez, M.P. and Elena, S. (2006), “Intellectual capital in universities: improving transparency and
internal management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 529-548, available at:
http://doi.org/10.1108/14691930610709158
Sánchez, P., Elena, S. and Castrillo, R. (2009), “Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: a reporting
model”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 307-324.
Santos-Rodrigues, H., Gupta, P. and Carlson, R. (2015), “Exploiting intellectual capital for economic
renewal”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Secundo, G., Elena-Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž. and Leitner, K.-H. (2015), “An intellectual capital
maturity model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 390-418, available at: http://doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230910978511
Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, G. and Passiante, G. (2010), “Intangible assets in higher education and
research: mission, performance or both?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 140-157, available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011039651
Serna, P. (2013), “Strategic prospective in knowledge management: a proposal for research groups in
Colombia”, Investigacion & Desarrollo, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 282-259.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of Intellectual
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463, capital of HEIs
available at: http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407911
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing & Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Tiwari, R.K. (2013), “Identification of factors affecting reverse chain performance in relation to
customer satisfaction using ISM Modelling & MICMAC Analysis”, Uncertain Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 237-252, available at: http://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2013.08.005 381
Veltri, S. and Silvestri, A. (2015), “The free state university integrated reporting: a critical
consideration”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 443-462, available at:
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2014-0077
Veltri, S., Mastroleo, G. and Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2014), “Measuring intellectual capital in the
university sector using a fuzzy logic expert system”, Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 175-192, available at: http://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.53
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2a., Sage Publications, London and Thousand
Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Eugénia Pedro can be contacted at: eugenia@ubi.pt

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com