ICICKM Keynote Speakers

Keynote Outlines

The following are outlines for the Keynote Speeches which will take place at ICICKM 2019

Intellectual capital accounting research analysed past, present and future

James Guthrie, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Today, people involved in the business, financial and accounting professions face challenging times. While fixed (tangible) assets continue to be important in specific industries, almost all organisations, also depend on the intellectual capital to create products and services. Also, issues associated with global warming and inequality make it imperative that we understand our intellectual capital (Dumay et al., 2018). Petty and Guthrie (2000) stated that as academic accountants our discussion no doubt exhibits a bias that favours work that comes from a quantitative/numerical/calculative framework. Perhaps our initial training has indelibly shaped our worldview. In any case, early work (e.g., has focussed on IC measurement and reporting. Petty and Guthrie (2000) reviewed a wider field of IC published research in the 1990s to determine pattering and directions. Guthrie et al. (2012) review of the intellectual capital accounting research literature added another decade of literature and found various developments and patterning. I will now extend these by reflecting IC published research to determine the past, present and future. Dumay, J.,  Villiers, C., Guthrie, J and Pei-Chi Hsiao, (2018) "Thirty years of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal: A critical study of the journal’s most cited articles", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 Issue: 5, pp.1510-1541, https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2915 Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F. and Dumay, J. (2012), “Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 68-92. Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000), “Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 155-76.

The role of Intellectual Capital in Value Creation: reflections and potentials

Christian Nielsen, Aalborg University, Denmark

From early days of the Intellectual Capital (IC) movement, researchers were puzzled by differences in the Market Values and Book Values of companies and this was accredited to the importance of IC in the creation of value. Whilst this discussion was kept in a financial setting, it also holds from the perspective of companies’ internal activities such as managing, producing, servicing, and innovating. This talk summons upon literatures of value creation, knowledge management, innovation and business models and queries the role of IC in them to create critical reflections and from them future research trajectories.

Addressing the Weakness in the Resource Based View by Adding Insights From the Intellectual Capital Field of Study

Göran Roos, Entrepreneurship, Commercialisation and Innovation Centre, University of Adelaide

There has been strong critique directed at the resource driven strategies (RDS) (including the resource-based view of the firm, the dynamic capability view of the firm and the competence-based view of the firm). In summary this critique boils down to the RDS…
  1. failing to provide a systematic, consistent and generally applicable basis for identifying firm attributes that are or are not strategically valuable.
  2. lacking a clear framework for the categorisation of resources.
  3. not addressing the accumulation and maintenance of strategically valuable resources and hence not providing guidance for the associated challenges faced by managers.
  4. treating resources as singular distinct items rather than as a bundle of resources that interact to produce a desired outcome.
  5. not allowing for reproducibility of experiments, falsifiability, and generalisability and hence not being a testable theory.
  6. objective of developing universally applicable propositions require such a high level of abstraction that the capacity for effectively addressing the specific conditions that distinguish qualitatively different competitive contexts may be lost.
  7. claim of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities, and having the organisation in place that can absorb and apply them is a necessary and sufficient condition for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage is incorrect since the listed criteria are not always necessary and not always sufficient to explain a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage.
  8. does not sufficiently recognise the role that judgment and mental models of individuals play in value creation and assessment.
  9. needs a more subjective and creative notion of resource value than is currently outlined in order to be implementable.
  10. assumes that similar resource endowments will produce similar outcomes in different firms.
  11. fails to capture dynamic aspects of the firm’s environment and its resource portfolio (this is addressed at the resource based view of the firm).
  12. does not explicitly take into account that strategic factor markets are incomplete and that some resources must be accumulated since they cannot be acquired.
This critique has been reviewed and some of it rejected but it has until now not been possible to reject this remaining critique which are critiques (2), (4), (7), (8), and (9) above.
This keynote will address how the use of insights from the Intellectual Capital field of study has allowed for the rejection of this remaining critique and in the process develop a practical toolbox enabling managers to deploy resource driven strategies in an operational sense.

The “Dark Side of KM”: Understanding the Role of Counterproductive Knowledge Behavior

Alexander Serenko, Lakehead University, Canada

As soon as the first knowledge management (KM) concepts entered the mainstream academic research, scholars became highly interested in the development of productive KM practices and mechanisms and, particularly, in knowledge sharing. Gradually, the scope of their inquiry has embraced various types of counterproductive knowledge behaviors representing the “dark side of KM.” The extant literature presents seven categories of counterproductive knowledge behaviors – disengagement from knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing ignorance, partial knowledge sharing, knowledge hoarding, counter-knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, and knowledge sabotage – each of which differs in terms of its negative impact on an organization. The purpose of this talk is to summarize the state of research on this topic and to sensitize KM researchers and practitioners to the importance of the “dark side of KM.”