intellectual capital in mexican public universities. a

0 downloads 0 Views 237KB Size Report
Jan 8, 2015 - measure or to report on intellectual capital can result in excessive costs and high ... technological capital) in two Mexican public universities.
XIV International Business and Economy Conference Bangkok, Thailand, January 5–8, 2015

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL IN MEXICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. A COMPARATIVE STUDY PATRICIA MERCADO SALGADO University of the State of Mexico Mexico [email protected] DANIEL ARTURO CERNAS ORTIZ University of the State of Mexico Mexico [email protected] MÓNICA LORENA SÁNCHEZ LIMÓN University of the State of Tamaulipas Mexico [email protected] BACKGROUND & PROBLEM STATEMENT Universities need improve the evidence of their contributions to society; an alternative is the self-evaluation of intellectual capital as complement to financial perspective. Failure to measure or to report on intellectual capital can result in excessive costs and high volatility, underinvestment, misallocation of resources and the risk of improper valuation. OBJECTIVES Compare the intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and technological capital) in two Mexican public universities. Compare perception of directors, managers and academics about intellectual capital levels in their universities. HYPOTHESIS H1: There are differences in the perceived levels of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and technological capital) in two Mexican public universities. H2: The hierarchical level (executives, managers and academics) significantly influences the perception of the level of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and technological capital). H3: The interaction between the educational institution (U1 and U2) and hierarchical level (executives, managers and academics) generate a differentiation in the perception of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and technological capital). METHOD/PROCEDURE It is a probabilistic study with two independent samples of 516 subjects (n1=287 and n2= 229). The scale of Intellectual Capital for Public Institutions of Higher Education was used in the

1

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2550028

XIV International Business and Economy Conference Bangkok, Thailand, January 5–8, 2015 collection of primary data. It’s integrated for 45 questions using multiple choice formats as the Guthman scale with two ends: appropriate- inadequate. Low scores reflect low levels of intellectual capital. Levels of reliability between .879 and .964 were reached. During the implementation process of the questionnaire it was guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. For data analysis, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was computed to simultaneously detect the statistical significance of differences between the means of the four dependent variables (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and technological capital) and categories of the two independent variables (organization and position). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was computed to test hypotheses 1 and 2. For hypothesis 3 preceded to a two-factor ANOVA (2X3) fixed effects. RESULTS Differences between the two institutions and between hierarchical levels (executives, managers and academics) regarding the perceived level of intellectual capital are confirmed. Intellectual capital is higher in U2 than in U1, although both must be better. Highest score corresponded to relational capital; lower score was in the human capital to U2 and structural capital to U1. Middle managers have better perception of human capital and structural capital; executives perceive better the relational capital and technological capital. Academics perceive greater gap between the existing and the required intellectual capital. No differences in the interaction between school (organizational level) and hierarchical levels (individual level) in the capital intellectual observed. CONCLUSIONS These findings serve to justify the investment in intellectual capital and inform internal and external stakeholders of the skills, resources and commitment with which the institution has to contribute to a better society. From the differentiated perception of intellectual capital in these educational institutions, can lead to the conclusion that the ability to acquire and exploit intangible resources depends on the location in time and space of each organization. It urgent the intellectual capital management as a proactive choice based on knowledge. On the one hand, the mission of the intellectual capital management is train qualified personnel, generate knowledge and disseminate culture; on the other, few actions toward generating own resources and must optimize what they have available. We must prove that the practical sense of intellectual capital is the creation of value. Keywords: INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL, HUMAN CAPITAL, STRUCTURAL CAPITAL, RELATIONAL UNIVERSITIES

2

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2550028