IJTM/IJCEE PAGE TEMPLATEv2 - Intangible Assets Consulting GmbH

The German Automotive Industry turns e – the Case of managing Technological Change by the Industry Leader Manfred Bornemann Managing Director of Intangible Assets Consulting GmbH, Graz, Austria and founding member of Arbeitskreis Wissensbilanz, task force for Intellectual Capital Reporting – made in Germany. Dr. Anton Schlossar Weg 16, A-8010 Graz, Austria [email protected]

Kay Alwert Managing Director of alwert GmbH&CoKG, Berlin, Germany and founding member of Arbeitskreis Wissensbilanz, task force for Intellectual Capital Reporting – made in Germany. Abstract: The automotive industry in southern Germany faces challenges of serious technological change from combustion engine driven cars to electro mobility. The automotive cluster is currently in a phase of transition from a global leader in an established technology to a completely new one. In order to manage this technological change, three levels of cluster hierarchies are mobilized to identify the most essential drivers and to focus interventions. This paper demonstrates the case of supporting innovation and collaboration in the cluster and the application of Intellectual Capital Reporting to assess the status quo of drivers of success in innovation policy. Central issues relate to higher systematic management of regional subunits, who are in charge of facilitating dialogue about changing technologies (Human Capital and Structural Capital), improved local collaboration (Relational Capital) as well as development of new infrastructure and policy models (Structural Capital). Keywords: Intellectual Capital, Assessment of Intellectual Capital, Cluster Management, Decision Support, automotive-bw

1 Introduction Innovation is in the focal point of almost all policy agendas from international institutions such as the European Union (Europe 2020) or the IMF to nation states, regions and organizations. Policy agents call for “radical” new ideas, consuming fewer resources while providing better performance and utility, preferably on a sustainable basis. These targets come amazingly close to the traditional ambitions of entrepreneurs and business people. So it might be interesting to explore the application of ideas routed in the microeconomical and entrepreneurial domain to larger innovation systems. What is driving innovation? What is essential to convert a good idea into a profitable one? How can a change in technology or design approach at the beginning of a production process trickle Copyright © 2012 – Intangible Assets Consulting GmbH www.ia-consulting.at

2

Bornemann; Alwert

down the value chain and eventually hit the market to recap all the investments as well as provide some surplus to cover for all the failures associated with the big agenda? There is a huge body of literature from various schools of thought dealing with innovation on various levels of observation. On the resource level, Boisot (1998) discussed how knowledge assets become the drivers of competitive advantage. Braczy et al (1998) provide a theoretical and empirical framework to understand innovation policy in a regional stetting. In a similar direction aim Mowery and Nelson (1999) with their collection of studies on sources of industrial leadership. While both sources reflect the “traditional” perspective of the old economy, Amin and Cohendet (2004) expand into the knowledge society and discuss new architectures of knowledge and their implication on firms and communities. Doyle et al (2008) reflect on connecting concepts from research with policy and practice, similar to Scarbrough (2008) who reflects on the connection between R&D intensive firms, policy development and knowledge exploitation. When discussing innovation in a technology based setting, such as automotive, the ideas of Chesbrough (2006) can not be ignored. But so far an instrument to connect intellectual capital with innovation policy was missing. Wiedenhofer (2010) provided not only a comprehensive literature review on innovation policy but identified a set of drivers for innovation policy. Of particular relevance for this line of thought are concepts of the resource based view which can be traced back to concepts by the early economist such as Walras, or Jevons. On a micro economic level, the concept was adopted with a strategic focus (Porter, 1980) and applied to the firm (Wernerfelt: A Resource-Based View of the Firm,1984), based on works by Coase (1937), Selznick (1957), Penrose (1959), Stigler (1961), Chandler (1962, 1977), and Williamson (1975) and others. Since the early 1990ies, Intangible Assets (defined e.g. by IAS 38) and Intellectual Capital attracted attention of academics as well as practitioners such as Sveiby, Edvinsson and Malone, Steward, who came out with books of identical title (Intellectual Capital) within the same year of publication (1996). Several groups of academics and researchers developed financial and non-financial methodologies on evaluation (for a review of the early approaches see: Reinhardt et al, 2001). One of the most eagerly pursued topics in these circle of academics and practitioners on Intellectual Capital relates to the assessment and measurement of the status quo and methodologies to prioritize investments into selected drivers. Resource allocation and patterns of cause and effect are hot disputed. Hence transparency and shared perspectives among key players help to improve effectiveness of collaboration as well as to improve time to market of innovations. The automotive industry in general is one of the most innovative industrial sectors globally, second only to the aviation industry. In Germany, the automotive industry is the largest employer, particular in the southern provinces. The global financial crises 2008 as well as growing environmental concerns related to higher fuel efficiency and electro mobility result in combined pressure to develop radical new concepts of mobility and probably adapt the industry structure accordingly. Governmental (e.g. ministries) as well as non governmental organizations (e.g. innovation agencies) are working to support this technological as well as economical change and need to identify a) new instruments to handle these challenges of b) measuring the status quo of resources and drivers for innovation to initiate c) measures to optimally support strategic priorities, such as a paradigmatic shift from carbon based

Copyright © 2012 – Intangible Assets Consulting GmbH www.ia-consulting.at

The German Automotive Industry turns e mobility to e-mobility with chronically limited resources. Some hints to these priorities are provided by concepts of intellectual capital reporting.

2 Research purpose and research question This paper demonstrates the case of supporting innovation and collaboration in Automotive Baden Württemberg (automotive bw) and the application of Intellectual Capital Reporting according to the concept of “Wissensbilanz – Made in Germany” (BMWI 2005) to assess the status quo of drivers of success in innovation policy based on Wiedenhofer (2009) as well as Alwert et al (2010). Central issues relate to higher systematic management of regional subunits, who are in charge of facilitating dialogue about changing technologies (Human Capital and Structural Capital), improved local collaboration (Relational Capital) as well as development of new infrastructure and policy models (Structural Capital). The focus of the research question is not only to prove the concept of applicability of ICR methods on very large systems such as a region, but to learn about relevance and acceptance of the identified innovation drivers as well as their suitability for defining measures for development. For the automotive industry as an industry as well as for the SMEs within this industry, several risks are associated with a change of technology. Insecurity about technological trajectories as well as speed of change of technologies and the hence implied need for investment, to name only two as well as the tendency of OEMs (original equipment manufacturer) to transfer the maximum of these risks from the OEM to the suppliers present tremendous challenges. If innovation policy represents not only a buzz word but relevant and effective support for SMEs, innovation agencies within regional innovation systems (RIS) could play a crucial role to deliver transparency as well as guidance into the future. However, they need to know about the status quo and the priorities of drivers for innovation. Large regional innovation systems should not be treated as a homogenous structure with a coherent body of governance, aligned targets, agreed upon and collectively shared technology trajectories or undisputed priorities to allocate resources (e.g. Rich, 2005). Each level or layer of intervention has different priorities and therefore needs different measures to best achieve its very own targets as well as objectives set by a “larger” entity such as a dominant (global) player or a government led initiatives, such as the current (2011) EU-wide discussion of change in energy supply technologies and its implications on automotive industry. Particularly “common” goals with “shared” resources or “public” funds benefit from shared understanding or at least transparency about the nature as well as cause-and-effect patterns of these common goals.

3 Concept and application Hence, an Intellectual Capital Report should respect these differences and address various levels of aggregations distinctively. One way to discriminate is to identify regional subsystems and to suggest that local issues are best managed based on subsidiarity principles. Another way is to address various stakeholders with deviating interests. Enterprises typically do have their own priorities, which are regularly quite different from

Copyright © 2012 – Intangible Assets Consulting GmbH

www.ia-consulting.at

3

4

Bornemann; Alwert

the priorities of a technology transfer institution, local government funding agencies or R&D institutions. In this project, the following design to integrate stakeholders was chosen, because it reflects the local management and governance structure of the automotive industry: • First level – SMEs as members of the automotive bw initative: SMEs are the smallest organizational unit in this network that can act independently. They decide about allocation of resources and find (new) ways to develop and improve them without further counsel of alternative stakeholders. They are independent and yet prone to incentives set by their environment, particularly customers, but although government agencies (subsidies, grants, tax advantages …). • Second level – local cluster management (LCM) as a governmental or nongovernmental organization aim to advance “their” SMEs. Alternatively to a regional approach, topical distinction might be useful (and is applied in many initiatives). However, they LCM have heterogeneous priorities, e.g. including to attract “new” business into a certain place or to improve productivity and the position of existing enterprises in the value chain. Not all local cluster managers are dedicated to the same set of priorities, such as for example developing e-mobilty, but partially rather follow more general priorities (e.g. keeping up high levels of employment in their region). It is interesting for them to learn about the explicit priorities of each other, experiences with established methodologies for various tasks or the needs and priorities of their direct clients – which most likely are SMEs again. • Third level – agencies dedicated to support objectives by a centralized institution such as a (province) government, a state or even larger institutions (EU): Their problem is frequently the plurality of interests of small groups and niche players, the unlimited need for support by these niche players and – almost by definition – limited funds. To resolve this dilemma, one option is to identify shared priorities and to support autonomy, for example by improving the collaboration between second level agencies amongst each other or directly with players from the first level (SMEs). Identifying a more comprehensive or even global perspective than on other levels of intervention seems to offer the biggest opportunity and combined with efforts to analyse and to communicate the consequences, more efficient allocation of resources should be possible.

3 Drivers for Intellectual Capital As this project is organized in three different layers with quite distinct stakeholders and different objectives and interests, a differentiated set of drivers for each group of stakeholders seems to be reasonable. The literature reports excellent experiences with a set of “standard drivers for IC” (BMWI – Leitfaden Wissensbilanz made in Germany 1.0 (2004), InCaS – European ICS Guideline (2008)) that where used for a general survey for the status quo of the Intellectual Capital of the Federal Republic of Germany (Alwert et al 2010a). The same set of variables was surveyed in the automotive industry to test for differences as well as similarities and is listed in appendix 1. For the level of cluster managers, both, scope and scale of interests are different in detail compared to SMEs. As discussed in the introduction, the literature on innovation policy frameworks is diverse. We therefore relied on a literature review by Wiedenhofer


The German Automotive Industry turns e

5

Social competence

y

Employee motivation Leadership ability

Weak ties

Cooperation with universities and other R&D institutions

Cooperation with economic partners

Institutions for knowledge transfer und support

organiof proximity Geographic sations

New technologies in the business field

Regional technological paths

Innovation- and R&D-budget

Regional Management of the Innovation System

Trust, conventions and cultural aspects

x

Managerial attitude towards strategy and innovation

Professional competence

drivers for the interview with the clustermanagement

Leading figures and stakeholders

SME - drivers

Qualified staff on the regional labour market

(2010) and adopted her set of drivers for assessing Intellectual Capital for innovation policy. The complete set is listed in appendix 2. For a full definition, please refer to Wiedenhofer (2011). A comprehensive perspective offers the integration of both sets of drivers and is most relevant for the regional cluster management. It is visualized in Table 1 and shows similarities as well as complementary foci.

n.a. x

Internal Co-operation and Knowledge Transfer Management Instruments

x

Information Technology and Explicit Knowledge

x

Product Innovation

x

Process Optimisation and Innovation

x

Corporate culture

x x x

Customer Relationships

x

Supplier Relationships Public Relationships

x y

Investor Relationships

x

Relationship to Co-operation Partners

x

Machines and Facilities

x n.a.

Materials and Supplies Financial Resources

x

n.a. x

Figure-1: Integration of drivers for Intellectual Capital from two perspectives: SME and Cluster Management. x = full match; y= partial match. Employee motivation, machines and facilities and materials and supplies are not assessed on cluster perspective, as they are specifically focusing on micro economic and entrepreneurial details that have no equivalent in the meso level. There are similarities in scope between social competence and public relationships to trust, conventions and cultural aspects. However, these similarities should not be stretched and therefore be considered only with caution. Typical dimension for the meso level without corresponding driver in the micro level relate geographic proximity and weak ties to technology partners outside the cluster, even though both dimension might be interesting to explore on SME level as well. For assessing the status quo as well as relative importance of IC drivers, a web based survey was used to gather the data of SMEs. Response rates (n=79) of reliable data were lower than expected, because participants used the survey and the machine generated reports more to learn about the tool, than to deliver reliable data. The survey focused on the following questions:



6

Bornemann; Alwert

•

What importance do small and medium sized enterprises attribute to Intellectual Capital as a resource to achieve strategic objectives? • What is the status quo of the Intellectual Capital in the automotive industry of the region of Baden Württemberg? What are the areas for development of knowledge based enterprises? • What could and should be done form an integrated perspective? What measures and recommendations could be deduced from the status quo of particular drivers of Intellectual Capital in relation to relative importance and strategic objective? The same structure of survey was used for interviews with all local cluster managers and their teams. The response rate is 100%, for most of the 8 clusters, two experts contribute to the interview.

5. Findings The data were gathered between Mai 2010 and July 2010 and therefore reflect the status quo of the automotive industry at the beginning of a new growth cycle. In this paper, the focus is on qualitative results, for quantitative results please refer to Bornemann et al 2011.

5.1 Importance and Status Quo of Intellectual Capital by SMEs One of the major issues of this study was to identify the relative strategic importance if Intellectual Capital for the region of Baden Württemberg and the automotive industry in particular. Strategic importance of drivers change in line with an over all change of technology or economic development. In the case of automotive-bw the new challenge is to adopt new concepts of electro mobility instead of the “traditional” fuel based cars. Prior research (BMWI (2004); Wuscher (2006), Alwert (2010a) suggests that Intellectual Capital is relatively more important than financial capital. When comparing SMEs assessment of Intellectual Capital in the automotive sector to the rest of German companies, the relative importance if Intellectual Capital is slightly higher. The assessment of the status quo of Intellectual Capital is better, too. SMEs consider general public relations as of minor importance to achieve their goals. This is not different to the rest of German SMEs and hence implies that many initiatives of clusters in the direction of their self promotion (cluster marketing) is not only of minor importance but so far did not generate any visible results. An interesting anomaly of SMEs within the automotive sector relative to German SMEs relates to their strong and explicit orientation towards innovation. Product innovation and Process innovation are considered of much higher importance than (financial) success.


The German Automotive Industry turns e

Mittelwert Einflus s (N=79) importance 10

Humankapital

7

Mittelwert Aus prägung (N=79) status quo

Strukturkapital

Materielle und Finanzielle Faktoren

Beziehungskapital

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Finanzielle Ressourcen

Rohstoffe

Financial Ressources

und Gebäude

MaterialsMaterialien and Supplies und

Machines and Facilities Maschinen, Anlagen

Kapitalgebern

Relationship to Co-operation Beziehungen zu Partners Kooperationspartnern

Öffentlichkeit

Investor Relationships Beziehungen zu

Public Relationships Beziehungen zur

Lieferantenbeziehungen

Kundenbeziehungen

Supplier Relationships

Customer Relationships

Corporate culture

Unternehmenskultur

Produktinnovation

Process Optimisation and Prozessinnovation Innovation

Product Innovation

Führungsinstrumente

Information Technology and IT und explizites Wissen Explicit Knowledge

Management Instruments Managementund

Führungskompetenz

Internal Co-operation und and Zusammenarbeit Knowledge Transfer Wissenstransfer

Motivation

Leadership ability

Employee motivation

Soziale Kompetenz

Fachkompetenz

Social competence

0

Professional competence

1

Figure-2: relative importance and status quo of Intellectual Capital from the SME perspective in automotive-bw (2010).

5.1 Importance and Status Quo of Intellectual Capital by cluster managers From the perspective of cluster managers, the results are similar to the SMEs, as qualified staff is of highest importance. However, according to the cluster managers, it is in short supply and thus presents an important difference in assessment. Leadership ability is important for both groups, but again, the shortage is much worse from the meso-level than from the micro level. Cluster managers associate a crucial importance to people with leadership ability and charisma when directing large systems into new technological or managerial domains. SMEs and Cluster managers agree upon the importance of cooperation with economic or business partners and they agree upon the high potential for improvement in order to achieve optimal results. Interesting is the relative weak importance which cluster managers attribute to their own agenda of managing a regional innovation system. This however is supported by SME, who generally consider public agents such as RIS of low importance.



8

Bornemann; Alwert IC Management Portfolio stabelize

Managerial attitude towards strategy and innovation

relative importance for the success of the cluster

high

10%

act

Cooperation with economic partners

9% Qualified staff on the regional labour market

Leading figures and Trust, conventions and stakeholders cultural aspects

9%

8% RIS Management

Weak ties New technologies in the business field Innovation- and R&Dbudget Regional technological paths

low

Cooperation with universities and other R&D institutions

7% Institutions for knowledge transfer und support 7%

keep the level

9000%

low

analyze 8500%

8000%

7500%

7000%

6% high6500%

potential for improvement

Figure-2: Prioritization of Intellectual Capital for automotive-bw from a cluster manager perspective (2010)

6. Conclusions and Discussion Within this project, we could identify learnings regarding the assessment of Intellectual Capital differentiated by the level of assessment and learnings related to the methodological application of Wissensbilanz – Made in Germany.

6.1 Lessons Learned on various levels of assessment of Intellectual Capital SME-level: Before this project, most of the SMEs were not aware of particular management methods for Intellectual Capital, the various drivers of IC or the status quo. However, when offered a brief introduction to the concept, they frequently recognize it as “part of management” – though intuitive management and regularly not supported by systematic measures. SMEs do have strengths in human capital as a consequence of their tendencies of long term, if not life-long, working relationships and the advantages of collecting a huge body of first hand empirical insight and crafts men experiences and skills. Hover, there are challenges related to managerial skills, particularly in creating the organizational structures for larger enterprises and global players. Another, so far unresolved, challenge


8%

The German Automotive Industry turns e identified by SMEs is their ability to collaborate and to transfer knowledge within their organizations. Here, the cluster initiative of automotive bw already started to implement measures to improve local collaboration of SMEs to transfer best practices for inter-organizational and intra-organizational knowledge transfer. Management development seems to be a general problem and not restricted to the automotive industry. This problem should be addressed in collaboration with local government and institutions for tertiary education, even though chances for change are estimated to be modest. Regional cluster management: The concept of IC was not familiar to all of the cluster managers, even though some of them had prior experiences with the concept. However, in the course of this project, they could relate most of the drivers of Intellectual Capital easily to their procedures. The strength of RCM is their strong orientation towards technological innovation based upon established relationships with various institutions such as universities and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). However, this project revealed challenges in their core competence of effective knowledge transfer and particularly the involvement of key players. Within the participating clusters, there are huge differences and thus potentials for peer learning within the cluster managers. As they are regularly not competing and in this particular project explicitly collaborating with each other, the mutual benefit is obvious. As a direct consequence of the assessment of Intellectual Capital of cluster managers, a series of workshops to transfer best practices was initiated. Topics are the involvement of local enablers as well as improvement of their institutional resource access, eg based on sponsoring. After quick wins, these workshops are now established and part of the regular network activities. Central cluster management: Regional cluster management (RKW) was aware of the importance of IC. However, current data about status quo were hardly available, indicators based on third party publications have the inherent disadvantage of being published comparatively late and therefore fail to generate foresight reports or support decision making. The role of the central cluster management is the coordination of regional cluster managers according to strategic and political priorities. Hence the project justified and confirmed ex post the implementation of the initiative and additionally reinforced the need for improved collaboration between regional cluster managers as well as between SMEs. With TecNets as an initiative, the central cluster management provided an answer to these needs and challenges. In short, TecNets focus to better connect all the leading players of the automotive industry with their small and medium sized suppliers. Leading players such as Daimler, Audi, Bosch or Festo define focus groups of particular importance for their individual technological road maps and invite suppliers to contribute to specific calls for technology innovation. For example, Daimler defined three open calls (separation of functions and downsizing of components; utilization of system heat; optimization of secondary energy consumption) where enterprises can contribute their ideas and concepts. Based on Daimlers expertise and selection, joint projects might emerge and thus contribute to faster change.



9

10

Bornemann; Alwert

6.2 Lessons Learned on the methodological level Within this project, we could: • demonstrate prove of concept of applicability of ICR methods on very large systems such as a region: Even though early approaches on application of Intellectual Capital in regional systems were available (Ricardis, Nanonet, noest,), only few of them reported successful application. The province of Baden Württemberg is geographically a very large region and itself a kind of super structure of many very diverse areas. Urban regions such as Stuttgart and Karlsruhe are obviously distinct form rural areas such as Reutlingen or Schwäbisch Hall. The method of ICR does reflect these differences and offers an approach to harmonize deviations. • learn about relevance and acceptance of the identified innovation drivers: the basis for this research was provided by two so far distinct sources. One source focused on the methodological and procedural aspects and had broad application the SME context (Wissensbilanz – Made in Germany), while the other source covers the major issues of regional innovation systems and thus provided content of regional innovation perspectives based on in dept interviews with experts. • Learn about their suitability for defining measures for development: the project automotive Baden Württemberg was set up to facilitate and support the new focus of automotive research and development as well as production on the topic of e-mobility. Even though several players moved already ahead and established strong positions, the over all ambition is to become the global market leader in this new business segment. The challenge is twofold, as this “blue ocean” (Kim, 2005) of e-mobility is providing new opportunities as well as risks, while simultaneously aggressively attacking the established value chains and turning an already red ocean of automotive supply chains into an even bloodier one. In this context, this project served as a catalytic capacity to assess the status quo of different regions and to learn from each other how to involve the relevant players, how to unfreeze resources for this huge initiative and how to best invest them for the SME-clientele of the clusters. Interesting is a bias in assessing Intellectual Capital. What is considered as important has a better chance for intensive management attention than what is not considered as important. That makes sense, as long as perception and reality are coherent, but proves a fatal risk, once the perception of the strategic importance deviates from a realistic assessment. This bias can only be eliminated with methodology such as a sensitivity analyses (see e.g. BMWI 2005) – unfortunately adding time requirements to the process. Further research will be conducted in continuing this study to get data for a time series and to investigate whether or not the interventions have any effect in the assessment of intellectual Capital of the automotive industry in Baden Württemberg. A complementary study in another region could serve as a benchmark, similar to the work of Wiedenhofer (2010) with a regional industry focus.

References Alwert, K,. Bornemann, M.; Günther, S. ; Meyer, C.; Will, M., Wuscher, S.; (2010a), Studie „Wissenscluster automotive-bw“, Unternehmen aus dem automotive-bw auf dem Weg in


The German Automotive Industry turns e die wissensbasierte Wirtschaft, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi), Berlin. Alwert, K.; Bornemann, M., Meyer, C.; Will, M.; Wuscher, S., (2010b), Studie Wissensstandort Deutschland“, Deutsche Unternehmen auf dem Weg in die wissensbasierte Wirtschaft, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi), Berlin. Amin, A.; Cohendet, P, (2004), architectures of knowledge. firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford. BMWI - Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (2004),Intellectual capital statement – Made in Germany, Berlin. Boisot, M: (1998): Knowledge Assets. Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy. Oxford. Bornemann, M., Sammer, M., (2003) „Wissensbilanz NANONET Styria, 2003 – eine große Wissensbasis für kleine Dimensionen”, Steiermärkische Landesregierung, Graz, 2003. Bornemann, M., Reinhardt, R., (2009) „Handbuch Wissensbilanz – Umsetzung und Fallstudien”, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin. Braczyk, H.J.; Cooke, P.; Heidenreich, M. (1998), Regional Innovation Systems, UCL Press. Chandler, A.D. Jr. (1962), Strategy and Structure; Cambridge: The MIT Press. Chandler, A.D. Jr. (1977), The Visible Hand; Harvard University Press. Chesbrough, H. (2006), Open Innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard Business School Press. Coase, R.H., (1952[1937]), The Nature of the Firm. In G.J. Stigler & K.E. Boulding (Eds.), Readings in price theory; pp. 331–351. Chicago: Irwin. (Reprinted from Econometrica, (1937), 4, pp. 386–405. Doyle, L.; Adams, D.; Tibbitt, J.; Welsch, P. (2008), Building stronger communities. Connecting Research, policy and practice. Niace. Edvinsson and Malone, (1996), Intellectual Capital. European Commission: Europe 2020 - http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm Gulati, R. (2007), managing network resources. Alliances, affiliantions, and other relational assets. Oxford. Kim, Ch. W., Mauborgne, R. (2005), Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Penrose, E.T., (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York: Wiley. Porter, M. E. (1980), "Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors", New York, NY: Free Press Ritsch, K. (2005): Wissensorientierte Gestaltung von Wertschöpfungsnetzwerken, Graz. Reinhardt, R. Bornemann, M., Pawlowsky, P., Schneider, U. (2001) Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management: Perspectives on Measuring Knowledge. In: Nonaka, I et al, Handbook of Organizational Knowledge and Learning. Oxford. Rumelt, R. P. (1991), "How much does industry matter?". Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 167–185 Rumelt, D.P., (1984), Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm. Alternative theories of the firm; 2002, (2) pp. 286–300, Elgar Reference Collection. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, vol. 154. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar; distributed by American International Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vt., Scarbrough, H (editor) (2008), The evolution of business knowledge. Oxford. Steward, Th. (1996), Intellectual Capital. Stigler, G.K., (1961), The Economics of Information, Journal of Political Economy, pp. 213–225. Sveiby, K.E. (1996), Intellectual Capital.



11

12

Bornemann; Alwert

Wiedenhofer, R. (2010), Modellbezogene Analyse von Bedarf und Wirkung innovationsfördernder Maßnahmen am Beispiel des Industriesektors Maschinen und Metallwaren in der Steiermark. Technische Universität Wien, Wien. Wiedenhofer, R. (2011), „Characterizing the Resource Base for Innovation within a System – a Factor Based Approach“, working paper, Graz. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), The Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal; 5, (2), pp. 171–180. Wernerfelt, B. (1995), The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After. Strategic Management Journal; 16, (3), pp. 171–174. Williamson, O.E., (1975), Markets and hierarchy: Analysis and antitrust implications, New York: Free Press. Wuscher, S., Will, M.; Alwert, K.; Bornemann, M. (2006), Projektstudie über weiche Faktoren als Teil der Unternehmenseinschätzung, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi), Berlin.

Appendix 1 – Definitions of IC drivers for SMEs HC-1

HC-2

HC-3

HC-4

SC-1

SC-2

SC-3

SC-4

Professional competence The expertise gained within the organisation or in the employee’s career: professional training, higher education, training courses and seminars, as well as practical work experiences gained on-the-job. Social competence The ability to get on well with people, communicate and discuss in a constructive manner, nurturing trust-enhancing behaviour in order to enable a comfortable co-operation. Furthermore the learning ability, the self-conscious handling of critique and risks as well as the creativity and flexibility of individual employees are embraced in the term ‘social competence’ Employee motivation The motivation to play a part within the organisation, to take on responsibility, committed to the fulfilment of tasks and the willingness for an open knowledge exchange. Typical sub areas are for example satisfaction with the labour situation, identification with the organisation, sense and participation of achievement. Leadership ability The ability to administrate and motivate people. Develop and communicate strategies and visions and their empathic implementation. Negotiation skills, assertiveness, consequence and credibility as well as the ability to create a scope of self dependant development belong to this IC factor. Corporate culture The business culture comprises all values and norms, influencing joint interaction, knowledge transfer and the working manner. Compliance to rules, good manners, "Do's and Don'ts" and the handling of failures are important aspects in the process. Internal Co-operation and Knowledge Transfer The manner how employees, organisational units and different hierarchy levels exchange information and co-operate together (e.g. conjoint projects). The focused knowledge transfer among employees. Furthermore the focused knowledge transfer between generations is noticeable. Management Instruments Tools and instruments supporting the efforts of the leadership and therefore have an impact on the way how decisions are made and what information paths are incorporated in the decision-making process. Information Technology and Explicit Knowledge The computer assisted working environment including all elements of explicit knowledge. Among these are for example specific technical operating principles, networks, fileserver, intra- and extranet, databases, internet and software applications including the content.


The German Automotive Industry turns e SC-5

Product Innovation Innovations of great importance for the future of the organisation. Characterised by the fact, that they’ll bring new products into being or fundamentally change existing products eventually result in a patent application. SC-6 Process Optimisation and Innovation Optimisation and improvement of internal procedures and processes, e.g. continuous improvement of all business processes as well as idea management in order to gather suggestions of improvement. RC-1 Customer Relationships The relationship to former, current and potential customers. The management of these relations comprises activities like sales and marketing, CRM and face-to-face customer cultivation by employees RC-2 Supplier Relationships The relationship to former, current and potential suppliers. The management of these relations comprises activities concerning purchases and the cultivation of suppliers RC-3 Public Relationships Relationship to the public. Including the relationship to former and potential employees and the public in general, all activities of public relationship management as well as corporate citizenship, e.g. supporting regional activities. RC-4 Investor Relationships All relations to investors - external and internal investors i.e. banks, owners, stockholders. The management of these relations comprises all activities providing specific information to the faction, e.g. accountability RC-5 Relationship to Co-operation Partners All relations to professional associations, bodies, and societies. The management of these relationships comprises activities like joint acquisition of customers, suppliers, investors as well as an active knowledge transfer on R&D partnerships, best-practice transfer and networking activities Table-2: Definitions of Intellectual Capital for SMEs according to Wissensbilanz - Made in Germany and Intellectual Capital Statements - Made in Europe

Appendix 2 – List of IC drivers for regional cluster managers Qualified staff on the regional labour market Leading figures and stakeholders Managerial attitude towards strategy and innovation Trust, conventions and cultural aspects RIS Management Innovation- and R&D-budget Regional technological paths New technologies in the business field Geographic proximity of organisations Institutions for knowledge transfer and support Cooperation with economic partners Cooperation with universities and other R&D institutions Weak ties



13