Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jay Chatzkel, (2002),"A conversation with Gran Roos", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 96 117
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691930210424716
Downloaded on: 21 May 2016, At: 09:46 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 10 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 684 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:204225 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
JIC
3,2
A conversation with
Goran Roos
Jay Chatzkel
96
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
Goran Roos is continually developing some of the most advanced, and yet
readily usable approaches to leveraging the interrelated roles of intellectual
capital and strategy in contemporary organizations. As both a thought
leader and practitioner, he has made seminal contributions to the field of
intellectual capital through his writings and his implementation of practical
solutions.
He has created frameworks which enable making the intangible of
intellectual capital understood as a very real asset to be cultivated, measured
and appropriately exploited for competitive advantage. He works with
management to rethink strategies and practices to determine and utilize the
drivers for intellectual capital growth, as well as how to rigorously valuate and
effectively use their intellectual resources throughout their enterprises to make
significant differences.
He is the founder of Intellectual Capital Services Ltd (ICS), developer of its
main concepts, and manager of its day-to-day operations. As a practitioner, he
delivers the services of ICS to a wide variety of both private and public sector
organizations around the world in a broad range of market segments.
He does this together with his team of recognized experts in this field;
Anna Rylander (disclosure issues), Stephen Pike (value measurement tools),
Kristine Jacobsen (value driver issues), Tony Powell (cost driver issues),
Oliver Gupta (navigator issues) and Philip M'Pherson (value measurement
theory).
Mr Roos holds several academic positions and he and his team are the
authors and co-authors of numerous books and articles in the field of
intellectual capital and strategy, and he serves on the editorial board of the
Journal of Intellectual Capital. Mr Roos was also named one of the 13 most
influential thinkers for the twenty-first century by the Spanish business
magazine Direccion y Progreso (No. 167).
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
98
Figure 1.
An outline of the
IC process
Business recipes
JC: And the business recipes are?
GR: A business recipe in our terms is the specific resources and the way they
are being combined in terms of transformations.
JC: You take IC as a way to work that through?
GR: The IC lens allows us to work that through, yes.
JC: Does that relate to how you determine the value creation path in the
organization?
GR: By using the IC lens, you can determine the value creation path in the
organization. Two simple examples will illustrate the point. Let's compare two
companies called Company A and Company B, to be imaginative!
Both of them are consulting firms. Company A is made up of very bright
people that work together in order to make money and have fun. The resources
they have at their disposal in order to make some money are some working
capital to keep the business going, they do not need a lot, but they need some.
They probably need some miniscule physical things, like computers and the
like.
They need a lot of relationships with customers and other people, and they
need to have an enormous amount of competence in themselves as individuals.
And, as individuals, they build relationship with clients.
They make money from two transformations. They make money by
converting their time to cash, which is based on their competence, so they
charge a lot. And, since they have very strong personal relationships, they can
charge even more than they otherwise could. So, the relationships contribute to
the charging level and is the second transformation. They then reinvest some of
this money into maintaining the relationships and in furthering their own
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
competence. Now, as you notice, there is no structure, there are no processes. A conversation
Every time they do something, they tend to reinvent the wheel. They are with Goran Roos
unbelievably flexible but have great problems growing because you can't train
anybody here. The only way to train somebody is to take him or her on as an
apprentice. So, this is an organization that has chosen one business recipe for
advisory services.
99
The other firm, Company B, has a different view. They say, ``We provide
packaged solutions. We have ready solutions for you. That means that you buy
from us this solution and that is what you pay for''. We have some average
people that we leverage through excellent structures to produce very good
deliverables. Our processes, our systems, our brands and intellectual property
allow us to use average people to provide good solutions. But what you, as a
client, pay for is the solution primarily. You pay some miniscule amount for
man-hours but that's not what you make money on because you cannot charge
these average man-hours out at very high rates.
You also build a relationship between your organization and the client's
organization. So, the brand of the organization rather than the individual is
important. In other words, you have three contributing transformations to cash
flow here: first, a small amount from man-hour sales, second, large amounts
from sales of standardized solutions, and finally, some amount
from the organizational relationship (brand) that you have with the client
organization. You then reinvest this in maintaining and strengthening
relationships and in building processes, systems and structures.
A Company B type organization can grow easily because they just hire some
more people and leverage them through the system. On the other hand, these
types of organization are not very flexible because it takes a long time for a new
idea to be converted to a standardized offering that can be leveraged through
the people and relationships used by the organization.
In addition, in the first example, in Company A, if the people get run over by
a bus, there is nothing left. In Company B, if the people get run over by a bus,
you hire 15 or 20 or 200 new MBAs and say to them, ``Continue on page 47,
paragraph 6,'' and the client will not notice the difference.
Now, if you look at these two firms from a financial perspective, in other
words, the cash side how much goes in, how much goes out, and the balance
sheet side they can look exactly the same. They can have the same turnover.
They can have the same margin and the same balance sheet. Then, let's go to
the next level and ask clients about how satisfied they are. Even there they can
look exactly the same, with the same customer satisfaction level and same
retention ratio levels.
Where they look different is when we go out even further into the intellectual
capital side and talk about what type of competencies they have and how do
they use them, what type of processes, structures, systems, brands, IP, etc. and
how do they use them. In many ways this determines their fitness to meet the
unknown challenges of the future. That is where they differ. So the only way
you can see the difference between these two firms, and analyze the
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
100
Figure 2.
Navigators comparing
two consulting
companies
A conversation
with Goran Roos
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
101
Figure 3.
The relationship
between value and
delivered costs
There are two ways you need to look at it. One is to look at how each individual
activity can be performed better. The other is to look at how the system of
activities can be performed better. This is rather like taking a top-level look at
the organization as a whole on one hand and a tactical look at improving the
operation of the components on the other. Let's look at the whole organization
first.
In terms of systems of activities, we have to make a choice between three
logics. Are we a valued chain operator, a value shop operator, or value network
operator. A true value chain as first described by Porter is actually a very rare
thing, however, some manufacturing companies work as a collection of chains
assembled to look like a tree's structure.
JC: Could you define those?
GR: A bank, for example, can be a value shop when it focuses on converting
inputs to outputs. The value resides in the output and once you have the
output, you can remove the producing organization. This removal does not
impact on the value of the output. A bank could choose to be one of these
things, in which case the focus will be on efficiency. It will look at itself as a
factory that processes loans, applications, or something similar.
The value shop is a solutions provider. It's somebody that solves problems.
The input is a problem. The output is a solution to that problem. A bank that
does this would view itself as a financial service operator, a financial advisor,
that also has the ability to provide the money. But what it would do is identify
your problems, it would address those problems, it would select a solution
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
102
together with you and help to implement it. It would have stringent quality
controls. As part of it's offering, it would probably supply you with some cash
as a loan or accept some of your cash for investment.
Or, the bank could be a value network, which is basically the logic of the
marketplace. The bank would say, ``Well I am solely a conduit between people
that do not have money and those people that do have money''. What I do is
that I arrange the flow of cash between them. You can see that you can still be a
bank but it would have completely different consequences for what you would
focus on doing well, what you would focus on doing yourself, versus what you
would not want to do yourself.
This provides a kind of strategic systems logic. It asks, ``Which strategic
system am I going to operate in?''. Figure 4 illustrates the three value creation
logics.
For each of these activities, there is a requirement that the activity is done
well. Even if this strategic system provides you with the right activities, the
next question concerns doing them well. Doing them well is the ability to
transform different types of intellectual resources effectively and efficiently.
For our consulting case, it boils down to transforming the knowledge that
resides in the individual into good, useful solutions for the client. And, we all
know that there is no correlation between how much you know and how good
you are at transforming that knowledge into something useful for somebody
else, because if that was the case all university professors would be
millionaires, and they are not.
JC: The number of PhDs does not equate to the number of dollars in the bank
account?
GR: Correct. Rather, it is sometimes the reverse. We need to make a very
important distinction between having a resource whether it be competence,
process system, intellectual property, relationship, machines, cash and
putting it to value-creating use, which is the ability to transform one resource
into another.
Useful knowledge
JC: Is that useful knowledge?
GR: This can be seen as useful knowledge in this case, or useful processes,
useful systems, or useful relationships whatever is significant in your
business model. The issue here is about identifying for each activity, what are
the starting resources, what are the finishing resources, and what are the things
that impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the transformation between
the two sets. That determines how good you are going to be at executing that
activity well. The IC perspective here allows you to work with a strategy to
identify the necessary resources and to talk about the alternative ways in
which these resources can be deployed to address issues about strategic logic.
The outcome is that you can change your performance on your cost drivers and
value drivers in such a way that you move from where you are to where you
strategically desire to be. This move would have an impacting consequence
A conversation
with Goran Roos
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
103
Figure 4.
A comparison of three
business logics
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
104
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
what I do. So, how can we increase the perceived value of the organization that A conversation
we have? And what are the issues at stake here?''.
with Goran Roos
In summary, here are the four issues: have we got what it takes? Are we
deploying it in an effective way? Are we efficient in putting it to use? And, are
we actually creating value in the eyes of our beholders?
Approaches to valuation
JC: Who is generally your client? Is your client the head of strategy, the CEO, or
the head of a business unit?
GR: There are a couple of issues there: who are the people who contact us?
Who are the people on the project? And who are the people who actually get the
benefit in terms of it?
The people who contact us tend to be one out of three. It tends to be either the
CEO of a corporation, or a business unit manager. Or, the equivalent of a chief
technology officer, usually responsible for R&D or similar issues, or it's a
human resources director.
The people who become the owners, or who take ownership, of the project,
tend to be mostly the chief financial officers. The reason for that is that when
we come in normally he's an extremely skeptical gentleman. He or she is very
skeptical about all this soft stuff, and can't deal with it in a way he or she
perceives to be rational. But once we have proven to them that the
methodologies that exist in this field are as hard as the hardest version of
finance, they suddenly discover, ``Oh, this is great. I can now come to grips with
all those soft areas. I can now start to require them to deliver something that I
can track. I can ask my HR director to deliver hard numbers on performance
issues here. I want this. This is in my area of responsibility and control''.
Specifically, since chief financial officers are normally targeted with
maximizing the value creation of the company from all of its assets, not only
the traditional ones, this is an area where they, quite rightfully, take ownership.
They also tend to be quite powerful in the organization.
Who are the people that tend to benefit? In other words, what is the level at
which these projects are executed? There is a methodological issue here. The
first three approaches (i.e. do we have what it takes? The effectiveness issue,
and the efficiency issue) need to be implemented first at the largest entity in the
organization with a coherent strategy and a coherent business model or
business recipe, which is normally business unit level, before you can do it on
the corporate level. This is, because each business unit may have a different
strategy and a different business recipe and you need those as inputs in order
to do it on the corporate level.
The fourth, or valuation approach, tends to have the corporate level or an
independent corporation as the unit of analysis.
One of the interesting issues is that there are some unexpected benefits for
some in this. For example, an HR director normally finds this as extremely
appealing because usually he sits in the boardroom and talks a language that
the other ones do not talk and he cannot talk the language they talk. They talk
105
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
106
the language in numbers. He does not or she does not. This suddenly provides
him with an opportunity to do so. But the side effect is it also makes him
accountable in those terms. You can be sure that the chief financial officer will
make sure that they become accountable in these terms and that is normally an
unexpected outcome for the HR director. The chief financial officer tends to call
it a benefit.
JC: What are the four drivers of value in an organization and what do they
relate to?
GR: If we are to make any progress in understanding how we can turn our
new view of the company to practical advantages we will need to couple the
company ``engine'' to its value drivers. Why are drivers of value important?
These are drivers of value in the minds of customers. These are the drivers of
perceived value. They are important because they impact on two drivers of
cash. The first driver of cash is margin and the other driver of cash is revenue.
Revenue is driven by revenue drivers. These are, for example, the number of
client relationships, how long they last, how much they buy every time, and
how frequently they buy. But those terms are affected by the perceived value of
the customers. If you do not generate perceived value, you cannot generate
revenue.
Margin is driven by your relative performers of perceived value and
delivered costs and, therefore, perceived value is one of the two things to drive
the margin of the organization. Therefore, what we need to know in order to
manage margin and revenue well is an excellent understanding of our cost
drivers and an excellent understanding of our perceived value drivers. Most
organizations have excellent control of the cost drivers, specifically those that
work with activity-based costing. We can find sufficient cost information inside
the company.
The more difficult part is to get to the value drivers outside your
organization. Many organizations have not been comfortable in doing this for
the reason that they have to go outside the company. And if they have done it,
they have normally delegated it to some extent to marketing or some outside
supplier. We have done some research in this over the years and we have
identified, first, what the value driver categories are and, second, how you can
measure them. And there are some interesting insights we have gained along
the way.
It turns out that there are four categories of value drivers (see Figure 5). First
there is price, which are all the resources that the organization have to give up
in return for the service or product that they get. This can be actual money, it
can be some other resource, or it can be time or anything else.
The second is functionality, which is everything objectively measurable
surrounding your delivery. These are characteristics such as: did it arrive on
time, did it have the right color, did it do what it was supposed to do, etc.?
The third is distinctness. These are the things that generate mind share as a
precursor to market share. It's things like brands, reputation and references.
A conversation
with Goran Roos
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
107
Figure 5.
Situational importance
of different perceived
value driver categories
The fourth category is mental proximity. Those are the things that lower the
barriers for building person-to-person trust. We can call it, if you want, shared
values and beliefs.
Those are the value drivers. In a given customer group, these are not equally
important and, therefore, we have found that something called a natural
segmentation approach is the best segmentation approach. For example, if you
are a brand-dependent organization, what we found through many empirical
pieces of work and also academic study, is that you want to use this difference
in importance of value drivers as your segmentation criteria because that
creates segments that want to have the same things to the same extent. This is
something that we frequently help consumer goods companies with.
If you do so you can identify, for each brand or brand attribute, its specific
contribution to value and, therefore, the difference between doing what you do
on the present level and doing it very well identifies for you the actual outcome
in money that closing that gap would generate. That, in turn, can allow you to
know the offsetting revenue against the investment that's necessary. That, by
definition, allows you a very precise way of valuing brands in this area.
Business logic
JC: Why is it that the better a company knows its business logic, the fewer key
performance indicators, or KPIs, it needs?
GR: That's a very interesting question. We sometimes use a term called gut
feel. Gut feel is our accumulated experience and knowledge brought to bear in a
given problem situation, where we are not using articulated reasoning, but
unarticulated reasoning. In other words, if we have a situation we are
intimately familiar with, we need little additional information to form a gut feel,
which in nine cases out of ten will be correct.
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
108
If you are in a situation with which you are not familiar, you have nothing to
bring to bear. Therefore, you need to form an articulated model. And, in order
to do so you need a lot of input.
Let me give you a case to illustrate the point. A cookie company was run by
its founder, now an elderly gentleman, who had run this company for a long
time. In his later days, he decided to sell the company. He sold it to a large
multinational company, who put in extremely professional management. This
gentleman, who founded the company, happened to live next door and he was
given an honorary position on the board, but was really removed from the
operation of the company. The new multinational owner put in all of these
wonderful systems. In spite of this, at each board meeting, it seemed like this
old man knew more precisely the financial position of the company than
management did. And why was that? He was never in the factory. Never!
They asked him how he knew. His answer was; ``Well I know, it's obvious,''
Then the gentleman, unfortunately, died. At the funeral, it so happened that the
CEO of the company was sitting next to the guard who guarded the entrance to
the factory, and they came to talk.
The CEO asked the guard, ``How did you know the founder? Why are you
here?'' ``Well, I've known him all my life. We grew up together'', and on and on.
Then the guard said, ``When he retired we used to chat every morning on his
walk''.
The CEO said, ``What did you talk about?'' The guard responded, ``Well, we
spoke about this, that, and other. But he always asked me the same questions''.
``And what were they?'' asked the CEO.
``Well, he asked me how many people came to work today. He asked me how
many trucks of raw material were delivered. And he asked me how many
trucks of rejects were taken away. Those were the only three questions he
asked me''.
That was the basis for him knowing exactly what the performance of the
organization was, because he had, by building the company, internalized an
incredible understanding of the business. He knew that those were the only
three variables that he needed to know anything about. On the other side was
this extremely bright and extremely able professional manager who had not
internalized the business recipe and, therefore, was depending on lots of data.
But even with the data the CEO couldn't synthesize those in the same way as
this gentleman could.
The more you know about your business, the less data you need. But the
bottom line is not zero. There's always something you need to know, but if you
do not know anything, you need a lot of data. The point is; if you ask for a lot of
data, you probably do not know your business very well.
JC: What is the importance of stock and flow indicators?
GR: Resource and transformation indicators are very important. A resource
is something you have and a transformation is the transformation of one
resource into another. In order to create value, you need to be good at
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
110
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
market share. We have cases where, on a national basis for a very brief period A conversation
of time, market shares of 20 percent have risen to market shares of 80 percent with Goran Roos
simply by understanding better how to do these things. So, we have some very
dramatic, well-documented case studies illustrating the benefits that are
around.
JC: What are the components of the IC index, which is something you've
111
created?
GR: The IC index is something you can do on three levels. You can do it on
the perfect, theoretically rigorous level, which means covering the greatest
scope of things possible with the approach, and we have those offerings. One of
them is known as the holistic value added (HVA) approach. They take a lot of
time and they give a lot of value, but few companies have the time, resources or
need to go through one of those exercises.
You could also do things on what we call a ``Pareto level''. In this case, that is
one of the IC index issues, and you can put in 20 percent of the effort for 80
percent of the outcome.
Or, you can decide to put no effort in and do it anyway. That is what we call
using a tool and technique from The Heathrow Library of Management these
are the type of books you buy at an airport, which are called, You Can Be a Fool
and Beat the Market, and has all these wonderful, simplistic tools, which are
not grounded in anything more than a Sunday afternoon thought.
Now, we do not operate on this third level. But, we do operate on the first and
second levels. The IC index is the second level solution to a measurement
system that tracks value creation. The components of that index are primarily
indicators of the relevant transformations that are of importance in your
organization. They are extracted from the business model using matrix algebra
techniques. They are weighted using fixed sum and binary combination matrix
process approaches. They are tested using necessary and sufficiency criteria.
They are then combined into an index using measurement theory. That allows
you an index, a curve that tracks changes in your value creation ability. But
since it is a Pareto tool, the absolute value of the index is not important. Solely,
the change in the value of the index is important. Whereas on the HVA side,
since it is the perfect approach, you can also talk about the absolute value of the
outcome. The IC index is made up of weighted measures of transformations
between resources, allowing you to predict changes in your value creating
ability.
Third generation IC practices
JC: Now, you've talked about differences between first, second, and third
generation of intellectual capital practices. What are these differences?
GR: As research on intellectual capital progresses one can distinguish
between three generations of intellectual capital practices. There are distinct
differences between first, second and thirrd generation of intellectual capital
practice, which roughly align with the measurement possibilities just
discussed.
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
112
3rd gen.
IC, HVA
Data meet a
standard
Data address the
future
Yes
No
Partial
Yes
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Low
measurement
overhead
Easy to initiate
and use
Yes
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Moderate
Complex
to initiate
Allows multilevel
management
Measures stock,
flow and
influence
Partial
Yes
Yes
Stock
Does not
allow tradeoffs
Stock
Stock and
influence
Stock, flow
and
influence
Provides data at
all company
levels
Partial
Yes
Yes
Yes
Test
Auditable
and reliable
Overhead
and ease of
use
Strategic
management
Table I.
The stages of
development of
business management
methods
Financially
based, EVA
Main criteria
Shareholder
information
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
114
So, the first question is, ``Who is the observer?''. You need to identify one or
several observers. Then for each of these observers, you need to discover,
``what is it that they want to see changed in this observed object in order for
them to get more value out of it?''. Next, you need to identify the object very
well so you have a well-delineated object. Then, each of those things they want
to see changed (normally ``motherhood and apple pie'' kind of statement) needs
to be broken down into attributes that are measurable and identify measures.
You need to transform those measures into measurement space. In other words,
give them a 0 to 1 non-dimensional scale, by understanding what is the lowest
acceptable highest achievable range of points, and what happens in between.
You need to weight them and then to combine them using the axiomatic
approach of measurement theory. There are many ways of combining two
measures into one but four approaches cover most practical situations.
As a consequence and an outcome of that, you get what we call a value
function. We can then use that value function to achieve the three statements I
made first.
Let me run through an example to make it a bit livelier. My examples are
very simplistic but will give you an idea of the point.
Let's assume that the observer is my wife and the object under observation
is me. We ask my wife: ``What would you like to see in the object? What change
would you like to see in the object in order to get more value out of it?''.
The answer is mainly of ``the motherhood and apple pie'' type. It would be on
the order of ``more happiness in life''. If the object displays more happiness in
life, my value perception of the object goes up. Now, I can't measure happiness
in life. I need to break that down into some form of attributes. I may now need
to ask the questions of the observer and break it down into actual constituent
parts.
In this case, my wife may well decide to say that, ``happiness in life is made
up of three things: good health, disposable income, and free time''. For each of
those, I need to define some good measures and then for each of the measures or
there may be more than one measure for them. I may have to find out what is
the lowest acceptable level, what is the highest achievable, and what happens
in between, and that is normally not linear. Then, I need to talk about how
relatively important they are. Next, I need to know how they combine. And,
obviously they don't combine the same way for each combination. If I'm asked
a question, how much money have I need to be paid for me to give up some free
time? I will be able to come up with an answer: $x thousand, $x hundred
thousand, or $x million and I will give up this free time.
Then, I ask myself the question, ``How much money do I want now to give up
my health?''. That obviously is not for sale. So, they have completely different
trade-off characteristics. They have different ways of combining together.
What we want optimally is to have total free time, total disposable income,
and total health. But, we are not willing to give up total health because without
any health, the rest is worth nothing. On the other hand, without either free
time or money then health isn't worth a lot either in this scenario. But, we can
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
trade off both disposal income and time. That would be all right and we could A conversation
stay at the same value level. If you notice, the whole exercise down to the last with Goran Roos
point is solely done by extracting information from the observer.
Once that information is consolidated, we go to the object and say, ``Now,
here is what I can do to increase the value in the eyes of your observer''. In other
words, you sometimes hear people making the statement, ``My company is
115
undervalued''. And from this point of view, there are only three interpretations
of that statement. Either you, as a CEO, know something about your company
that if known to the investors would have increased their value perception of
the company. You may have tried to communicate it but for some reason it
didn't reach. It was stuck in cyberspace or something. That is alternative one.
That is a communication problem.
Alternative two is that the same scenario, you know something but have
chosen not to tell anybody, which in most cases, if you're listed, is illegal and
we can not help you with that.
The third one is ``our problem'' that there is this assumption implicit in the
statement that you, as the CEO, observed these indicators of your company and
get to one value. The investor sees the same indicators; therefore, (s)he must
put them together in the same way as you do and must get to the same value.
And that is not the case. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So,
there has to be a realization that the same indicators give rise to different value
in different observers. So the question you have to ask yourself, as a CEO, is: ``If
I want to maximize market value of my company or shareholder value, what
balance do I strike between performing on what I think is correct, as opposed to
performing on what my investor thinks is correct?'' In other words, how do I
balance delivering what you want to get versus educating you into getting to
my viewpoint? That is where this technique comes in.
JC: Do you mean that it begins to be differentiated out so you can make better
choices?
GR: Correct
Value space
JC: In the holistic value added approach, you've defined something called ``value
space'' and in that you use a multi-dimensional contour map (Figure 6) to take a
look at it. What is the advantage of looking at the value spaces using a multidimensional, topographic perspective?
GR: It allows a number of things. First, it allows a clearer understanding of
how value would change with different input variables. Obviously on the
Z-axis, you have value and then on the X and Y-axis you have some
combination structure on that level. For example, you could have the
contribution from intangibles versus contribution from tangibles to something
else. Here I can see what happens if I give up one hundred million units of this
in order to get ten units more competence, or whatever it may be. I can ask
myself what that means in my contour surface? I can also use a shape structure
to understand how sensitive my value generation ability is. I can ask if it is
JIC
3,2
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
116
Figure 6.
The multi-dimensional
contour map for ``value
space''
very steep there, or very shallow. I can begin to ascertain whether it matters if I
do something, or not matter that I do something. Also, it allows me to project
this value surface onto any of the constituents' dimensions. I can project this
known dimensional value onto the finances axis and say, ``This is how many
dollars my competence is worth'', or ``this is how many dollars my brand is
worth''. I can also point at the perceived effort that's going to be needed to move
in different directions along this contour map.
JC: You mean I can be able to gauge how much effort would be required to be
made?
GR: Yes, I can choose my route. I can discover or create a minimum energy
route to get from point A to point B.
JC: Fascinating. What are the critical issues you see in the present and ahead
in the field of intellectual capital?
GR: There are two ways to define the present and future in the field of
intellectual capital.
We can define it either as a science in its own right, in which case it faces the
first hurdle of achieving a recognized standard of language.
Or, we can define it as a synthesis as a number of sub sciences, like finance
theory, with systems theory, with strategy, with accounting, and so on, in
which case the hurdle becomes to ``get'' an acceptable practice. These would be
practices such as, ``This is how you report values of intangibles'', or ``This is
how you do this, and this is how you do that''.
In the first scenario, it's about the academic community agreeing a standard
of operation. In the second scenario, it's about the practitioners, for example,
the auditors, agreeing upon a standard practice of operation when it comes to
the area that intellectual capital deals with. I think that would be my short
answer. I have an extremely long answer but that would be my short answer.
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
A conversation
with Goran Roos
117
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
Downloaded by OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITAET MAGDEBURG At 09:46 21 May 2016 (PT)
Performance measurement systems: successes, failures and future a review. Measuring Business Excellence
10:3, 4-14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Chun-Yao Tseng, Yeong-Jia James Goo. 2005. Intellectual capital and corporate value in an emerging
economy: empirical study of Taiwanese manufacturers. R and D Management 35:2, 187-201. [CrossRef]
14. Luiz Antonio JoiaGetulio Vargas Foundation and Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Paulo SanzGetulio Vargas Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2005. The hidden value of sporadic customers
in eretailing. Internet Research 15:1, 7-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Luiz Antonio JoiaBrazilian School of Public and Business Administration, Getulio Vargas Foundation, and
Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2004. Are frequent customers always a company's
intangible asset?. Journal of Intellectual Capital 5:4, 586-601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Bernard MarrCentre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, Bedfordshire,
UK Gianni SchiumaDAPIT Facolt di Ingegneria, Potenza, Italy Andy NeelyCentre for Business
Performance, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK. 2004. Intellectual capital
defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management
Journal 10:5, 551-569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Irene M. HerremansHaskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Robert G.
IsaacHaskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 2004. Leading the strategic
development of intellectual capital. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25:2, 142-160.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Anne FletcherMacquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia
James GuthrieMacquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia
Peter SteaneMacquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia Gran
RoosIntellectual Capital Services Limited, London, UK Stephen PikeIntellectual Capital Services Limited,
London, UK. 2003. Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 4:4, 505-527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Anna SzopaIntellectual Capital and Business Performance in University Spin-Off Companies 215-224.
[CrossRef]
20. Graziella Sicoli, Franco Ernesto Rubino, Bronzetti Giovanni, Rija Maurizio, Paolo TenutaA New Third
Sector Intellectual Capital Model 27-43. [CrossRef]
21. Theories and Models of Service-Oriented Firms 1-34. [CrossRef]