Page 75 - Anales RADE vol I n 1
P. 75
(DMSTI, 2003). Second, the Méritum Guidelines3 (Cañibano et. al., 2002) focused
on the management and reporting of intangible assets.
The various stages and components of both guidelines are set forth and
compared in Figure 1. The Meritum Guidelines are based on the conceptual
framework of resources and capabilities such that the key intangibles are defined
on the basis of strategic objectives. The intangible assets correspond to the key
competencies that the company should acquire, maintain or develop through all
types of intangible activities. The guidelines comprise a stage of identification
followed by a system of measurement whereby a system of indicators is defined
and finally a phase of follow-up and action.
The “Danish Guidelines”, in contrast to the key intangibles of the “Méritum
Guidlines”, apply the concept of “management objectives”, which are defined as a
function of value creation for clients and customers. This framework also sets forth
a set of initiatives for achieving these management objectives as well as a system of
key indicators for monitoring progress.
Several analyses such as those carried out by Nordic Project (2001), Del
Bello (2002) and Guimón (2002) among others have compared these
methodologies identifying some areas of compatibility among them. While the
classification of indicators set forth in the “Danish Guidelines” is much more
detailed and easier to understand in practice, the “Méritum Guidelines” and
conceptually stronger given that they establish a link with strategic objectives.
Further, the “Danish Guidelines” are designed to provide external information
though the development of the Intellectual Capital Report while the “Meritum
Guidelines” address the need for both internal and external information.
2.3. Recent studies on the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital
Most recently, studies addressing the measurement and disclosure of
intellectual capital have focused on three main topics: a) the validation of
consolidated guidelines and models developed in previous years by applying them
to different organizations; b) monitoring trends with respect to the disclosure of
the intellectual capital of organizations as well as its use by third-parties; and c)
the evaluation of intellectual capital indicators in order to detect the positioning of
each in specific sectors.
3 These guidelines were not published as Meritum Guidelines, but given that they are one of the products from
the Meritum project, they are often referred to as such in various articles, and we continue to do so in this
paper. They were first published in November 2002 and constituted one of the principal products of the
Meritum project, which was financed by the EU to address the issue of intangibles comprehensively. This
project had the support and participation of researchers from various educational, governmental and research
institutions within Europe including Denmark, Spain, Finland, France and Sweden.
75| A case study on spanish electrical utilities
on the management and reporting of intangible assets.
The various stages and components of both guidelines are set forth and
compared in Figure 1. The Meritum Guidelines are based on the conceptual
framework of resources and capabilities such that the key intangibles are defined
on the basis of strategic objectives. The intangible assets correspond to the key
competencies that the company should acquire, maintain or develop through all
types of intangible activities. The guidelines comprise a stage of identification
followed by a system of measurement whereby a system of indicators is defined
and finally a phase of follow-up and action.
The “Danish Guidelines”, in contrast to the key intangibles of the “Méritum
Guidlines”, apply the concept of “management objectives”, which are defined as a
function of value creation for clients and customers. This framework also sets forth
a set of initiatives for achieving these management objectives as well as a system of
key indicators for monitoring progress.
Several analyses such as those carried out by Nordic Project (2001), Del
Bello (2002) and Guimón (2002) among others have compared these
methodologies identifying some areas of compatibility among them. While the
classification of indicators set forth in the “Danish Guidelines” is much more
detailed and easier to understand in practice, the “Méritum Guidelines” and
conceptually stronger given that they establish a link with strategic objectives.
Further, the “Danish Guidelines” are designed to provide external information
though the development of the Intellectual Capital Report while the “Meritum
Guidelines” address the need for both internal and external information.
2.3. Recent studies on the measurement and reporting of intellectual capital
Most recently, studies addressing the measurement and disclosure of
intellectual capital have focused on three main topics: a) the validation of
consolidated guidelines and models developed in previous years by applying them
to different organizations; b) monitoring trends with respect to the disclosure of
the intellectual capital of organizations as well as its use by third-parties; and c)
the evaluation of intellectual capital indicators in order to detect the positioning of
each in specific sectors.
3 These guidelines were not published as Meritum Guidelines, but given that they are one of the products from
the Meritum project, they are often referred to as such in various articles, and we continue to do so in this
paper. They were first published in November 2002 and constituted one of the principal products of the
Meritum project, which was financed by the EU to address the issue of intangibles comprehensively. This
project had the support and participation of researchers from various educational, governmental and research
institutions within Europe including Denmark, Spain, Finland, France and Sweden.
75| A case study on spanish electrical utilities
