Designing an intellectual capital management system: evaluation process through specific quality indicators
Download as PPT, PDF1 like585 views
This document summarizes a presentation on designing an intellectual capital management system for evaluation in higher education institutions. It discusses the assumptions and aims of higher education in the 21st century, including achieving excellence, providing solutions to important problems, and contributing to economic and social development. It also defines internationalization of higher education as integrating an international dimension into teaching, research, and services. Key indicators of internationalization include curriculum, quality assurance, foreign language provision, international programs, research, student and faculty mobility, and employability. The document then provides examples of management structures and processes for areas like curriculum development, research and development, and intellectual property.
Designing an intellectual capital management system: evaluation process through specific quality indicators
- 1. Designing an intellectual capital management system: evaluation process through specific quality indicators. K. Kalemis D.Ed., M.Sc., M.A.Ed Instructor at the National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government (E.K.D.D.A.) in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning Scientific Associate at the Department of Primary Education (PTDE) in National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
- 2. Outline of the presentation: Introduction Main characteristics of Universities today Assumptions Internationalization of Higher Education
- 3. 33 Assumptions Universities of the 21st century must be global, egalitarian, democratic, diverse, productive, sustainable, and
- 4. The major aims of higher education institutions (HEIs) are: (1) achieving excellence in teaching, research, and community service. providing solutions for national, regional, and global most important problems. contributing to the development of the national capital.
- 5. The major aims of higher education institutions (HEIs) are: (2) nurturing intellectual properties and patents. contributing to the economic and social development of humanity including public health, improvement of crops production, and cross-cultural and religious understanding.
- 6. 66 Assumptions (Cont.) The 21st century job market requires a technology literate and competent workforce with the ability to create, innovate, solve problems, and work in teams. Investment in higher education is most important and valuable as HEIs provide the world's leaders, scientists, businessmen, physicians, thinkers, and visionaries who chart society's cultural, scientific, and
- 7. Assumptions (Cont.) Not only do HEIs contribute to the nation's human capital and technological transformation but also to its social and cultural identity. HEIs cooperate with industry and business, enhance innovation, creativity, democracy, and wise governance in economy, politics, entrepreneurship, justice and equity
- 8. 88 Definition of Internationalization: "Internationalization of Higher Education is the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institution“. "(knight and De Wit, 1997). "Internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, inter- cultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary Education“. (knight, 2003) (Huang & Lin 2007, p 69)
- 9. Purpose? • " … the purpose of internationalization of higher education is to enhance students' ability to engage in job- related problem solving and decision making in ways that reflect knowledge and respect for other cultures".
- 10. Refer to : (1) The above definitions of Internationalization of HE relate to: • curriculum design and implementation: 1.content, 2.delivery, 3.evaluation & 4. modification. • research, patents and innovation • graduate studies, joint degree programmes MA & PhD. • student and faculty mobility • faculty hiring and firing • partnerships with business
- 11. Refer to : (2) • international foundation programme • cross border education • open course ware materials • blended teaching and learning. • national, regional, continental and global areas of education.
- 12. Indicators of Internationalization in HE Indicators of Internationalization are informed by the main features of international practice in respect of: – Excellence in teaching and research – Commitment to cultural understanding – Mobility of students and staff – Employability and generic skills. as expressed in its curriculum, quality assurance, foreign language provision, international programmes, membership in international associations, international agreements and memoranda of understanding, research, student mobility, graduate employability faculty mobility, faculty recruitment and evaluation.
- 13. Curriculum innovation and modification
- 14. University Quality Assurance Committee Faculty Council Faculty Quality Assurance Committee Department Council Council of Deans Guidance Working Group Module Working Groups Learning Resources Working Group Research Projects Working Group Examination Working Group Scientific/ Academic Working Group Curriculum Working Group Department Quality Assurance Committee General layout of QA committees and councils at the University level
- 15. Learning Resources Committee Guidance Committee Modules Committee Res. Projects Committee Scientific Committee Library Committee Exams Committee Faculty Council Faculty Quality Assurance Committee Layout of QA committees and councils at the faculty level
- 16. Learning Resources Committee Guidance Committee Modules Committee Res. Project Committee Scientific Committee Library Committee Exam Committee Department Council Department Quality Assurance Committee Layout of QA committees and councils at the department level
- 18. Performance Consulting – A process in which a trainer and the organizational client work together (“bundled solution”) to determine what needs to be done to improve results – Performance consulting approach: • Focusing on identifying and addressing root causes of performance problems. • Recognizing that the interaction of individual and organizational factors influences employee performance. • Documenting the actions and accomplishments of high performers and comparing them with actions of more typical performers.
- 19. Elements of Training DesignElements of Training Design
- 21. Balanced scorecard • This is one of the best-known methodologies. It aligns the evaluation of the people dimension to a company's strategic aims through a balanced scorecard. • The scorecard originally had four elements: – Financial, – Customer, – Internal business process, – Learning and growth. • One of the main benefits of the scorecard approach is that it provides a simple communication tool for internal and external stakeholders.
- 22. Management of Intangible Assets in Higher Education Think Academic – Act Business University Structures and Processes Identification and Controlling of Intangible Assets I.C. Report: A Measurement and Controlling Tool Case Study – I.C. Management in Spanish Universities The Process of Research Commercialization Human Resource Management Improving IPR Output
- 23. University Processes SupportProc. VisionVision Teaching Research and Development Continuing Education Goals & Policies CoreProcessesMgmt.Proc. Administration Controlling Steering Quality Mgmt. HRM Financing Intangible Capital Tangible Capital Graduates IPR
- 24. R&D in Particular VisionVision Desk Research Prototype Development IP Production / R&D Idea Testing Adaptation IP Valuation IP Protection Goals & Policies IPR & Innovation CoreProcessesMgmt.ProcessesSupport Processes Adm inistration Controlling Steering Quality Mgm t. HRM IP Monitoring Financing Intangible Capital Tangible Capital IP Exploitation
- 25. Conclusions Global Financial Crisis has a major affect on the role of Universities today. Close relation between HEI and Market Professionalism New Subjects (almost 25 % new each year) Quality assurance in HEI.
- 26. Reference List • Altenburger, O., Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2006): Controlling universities’ intellectual capital: are the recently implemented Austrian instruments adequate?, paper presented at the EIASM Workshop on Visualising, Measuring, and Managing Intangibles and Intellectual Capital, Maastricht, October 25-27. • Kaplan, R., Norton, D. (2004). Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets, Harvard Business Review, February, 52-63. • Leitner, K-H. (2010): Werkzeugkiste. Wissensbilanz, Organisationsentwicklung, 1/2010, 90-93. • Leitner K-H. (2004): Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian universities, Research Evaluation, 13, 2, 129-140. • Sanchez, P.M. and Elena, S. (2006): Intellectual capital in universities: improving transparency and internal management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7, 4, 529-48. • Sanchez, P.M., Elena, S., Castrillo, R. (2009): Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: a reporting model, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10, 2, 307-24. • Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, E., Passiante, G. (2010): Intangible assets in higher education and research: mission, performance or both?, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11, 2, 140- 157.