A Real-Time Evaluation of Intellectual Capital, Intellectual

8/9/2019 A Real-Time Evaluation of Intellectual Capital, Intellectual

1/10

FRONTIERS OF E-BUSINESS RESEARCH 2004

710

A Real-time Evaluation of Intellectual Capital, Intellectual

Property and Intellectual Property Rights in Early-stage

On-line Enterprises

Geoff Gregson; Richard Harrison

Centre for Entrepreneurship Research, the University of Edinburgh Management School

Abstract

This paper examines how entrepreneurs create, develop and exploit their knowledge assets, in

particular, their intellectual capital (IC), intellectual property (IP) and intellectual property

rights (IPRs), in the knowledge economy. While the importance of knowledge assets for

competitive advantage is acknowledged, few studies have examined the development and

exploitation of knowledge assets in early-stage enterprises, given knowledge assetcharacteristics, knowledge management mechanisms to identify and protect relevant assets

and internal and external factors. The research examines 16 early-stage enterprises (less than

5 years) active in the digital economy over a two-year period and measures knowledge,

business and external processes and consequences as they evolve, rather than as independent

indicators measured at one point in time. The integrated analysis of each case includes four

components; 1) creation, development and management of IC, IP and IPR; 2) outcomes - the

valuation, utilisation and adaptation of IC, IP and IPR; 3) micro-factors affecting outcomes,

that include enterprise strategy, business performance and complementary knowledge assets;

and 4) macro-factors affecting outcomes, that include assessment of relevant legal, business

and regulatory factors influencing IC, IP and IPR.

Introduction

The move towards a knowledge economy has been well documented in both academic and

practitioner literature and has become a facet of current management orthodoxy (OECD,

2001). Extensive research in a variety of academic disciplines has focused on different aspects

of production, appropriation, and transfer of knowledge. While some researchers have

concentrated on the learning process (Levinthal & March, 1993), others have emphasized the

creation of knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and the transfer and replication of

knowledge (Zander & Kogut, 1995).

Accordingly, the conceptualisation of knowledge as intellectual capital and the management

of knowledge are identified with creating competitive advantage in the knowledge economy

(Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Flood et al, 2002). Intellectual capital (IC) is identified with those

components of knowledge that can be created through human capital and whose value can be

identified and extracted (Harrison and Sullivan, 2000; WIPO, 2004). IC is also described as

intellectual material that has been formalised, captured, and leveraged to produce a higher-

valued asset (Stewart, 1997). IC may include not only traditional intangible assets, such as

brand names, trademarks and goodwill, but also new intangibles, such as knowledge,

technology value and good customer relationships.


2/10


711

Figure 1 shows the relationship of knowledge components within an enterprise, and identifies

intellectual property (IP) as a sub-set of an enterprises intellectual assets (IA) used to extract

value in the marketplace. Knowledge management (KM) activities may be present within the

enterprise to organise value-creating activities and to capture and leverage IA. Wiig (1997)

suggests that KM is identified within advanced enterprises as a deliberate strategy to renewand maximise the enterprise-wide value of IA.

Figure 1. Key Components of Enterprise Knowledge (Source: Harrison and Sullivan (p. 35;

2000)

Knowledge is also identified as both a process and product among the untraded

interdependencies that take the form of conventions, informal rules, and habits that

coordinate economic actors under conditions of uncertainty (Storper, 1997: 5). In this

context, both the value creation and value extraction processes, as identified in Figure 1, will

be affected by untraded interdependencies existing within the enterprise and between the

enterprise and its external environment (Dosi 1988; Teese 1986, 1996; Teece et al 1997) that

may enable or constrain IA creation and use.

For example, untraded interdependencies to extract value from IP may be affected not only by

characteristics of IP but also by the efficiency of the legal mechanisms of protection (Teece

1986; 2000). Leading from Teeces work, actor network theory (Callon 1987, 1992, Latour

1987) and Molinas (1995, 1997, 1998) concept of sociotechnical constituencies suggest the

need to examine IP given sectoral conditions, the regional context and legal regulations that

determine opportunities and boundaries for the enterprises use of its IP (Molina and Gregson2002).

The relationship between IC, IP and IPR, particularly in the early stages of new enterprise

development, is not well understood. One question is the extent to which different models of

innovation, resource acquisition and enterprise growth explain how IC, IP and IPR evolve in

the critical early stages of new enterprises (e.g. Penrose 1959; Churchill and Lewis 1983;

Mount et al 1993; Bhide 2000). Autio (2000) identifies an absence of studies examining

optimal IP strategies for technology-based new firms.

Previous studies within the UKs Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Intellectual

Property Research Programme (1996-99) suggest that IPR is of little relevance to small

businesses and their ongoing innovation except in specific sectors (Blackburn, 2003). For

Intellectual capital (IC)

Knowledge management (KM)

Value creation

Human capital

(HC)

Value extraction

Intellectual

assets (IA)

IP


3/10


712

example, Tang (2003) identifies that getting products rapidly to consumers, rather than

concerns over IPR, are most important for the on-line publishing sector. The traditional

economic perspective identifies IPR as the reward for entrepreneurial judgement and risk,

providing the knowledge creator and innovator with monopoly power and guaranteeing first-

advantage (Casson 1990), allowing entrepreneurs to control the introduction of newknowledge to potential consumers and secure profits (Howells et al, 1998). The legal

perspective for protecting IP is that innovations are hard to produce but easier to copy

(Chidamber and Kon, 1994). A key recommendation from the ESRC IP Research Programme

is that further research be undertaken on how enterprises evaluate their intellectual assets and

how they assess whether or not these assets should be covered by IPRs.

It is argued that the Internet and e-commerce is affecting knowledge creation for new

enterprises entering the digital economy and changing business, legal and economic

justifications for IP and IPR (Lessig 2002; Fowler 2001). Indeed, over the last decade, leading

socio-legal academics have voiced concern that existing theories and public policies are

falling behind a dynamic and evolving business reality of the digital economy (Arrow 1999;Dam 1993). Accelerated innovation and commercialisation of digital information goods

challenge an economic, social and legal system previously developed for industrial rather than

knowledge-based exploitation of IP. The Internet is the centre of academic debate over the

IPR appropriability problem of balancing economic returns and legal protection with public

disclosure to stimulate further invention. Lessigs (2002) assertion that law learns to

regulate identifies the problem of increasing exclusivity to knowledge afforded IPRs that

Lessig and others argue is incompatible with founding values of digital communication and

the Internet.

Research questions

Three related questions have been identified in the literature for further study. The first

question is how processes of IC, IP and IPR are created, developed and managed by new

enterprises active in the digital economy (doing business through the internet), in particular,

the underlying processes and decision-making activities to generate knowledge assets and the

relationship between IC, IP and IPR as the enterprise evolves. This includes examining the

incentives to invent, disclose, commercialise, design-around and invest in knowledge assets

and the impact of knowledge management activities on how early-stage enterprises protect,

exploit and manage their IP (Teece 2000).

The second question relates to understanding the IC outcomes for enterprises doing businessin the digital economy and the extent to which IP and IPR is a strategic objective as the

enterprise commences operations and develops over time. This includes examining pre-

commercial expectations and perceptions of IC, IP and IPR value over time as the enterprise

develops and the level of economic returns attributed to IC. Analysis of a number of

enterprises could identify the types of knowledge assets, enterprises and sectors most

vulnerable to information disclosure exposure that comes with a web-based presence.

Analysis would identify how IP and IPR are used (e.g. to prevent imitation, as indication of

value to potential investors, as a signal to competitors, as a first-mover strategy) and how

enterprises combine technologies to enhance IP appropriability. This level of analysis would


4/10


713

also reveal other internal competencies of the enterprise that complement or constrain use and

value of IC (Teece, 2000; Tang, 2003).

The third question identifies the need to consider external factors that affect IC, IP and IPR

creation, development and usage by early-stage enterprise. Few studies have examined thecosts and benefits of IP protection given varying legal and regulatory and sectoral conditions,

particularly in the context of on-line enterprises (Davis, 2002). This includes examining the

relationship between incentives, levels of protection and levels of public disclosure of IPRs,

and the level of knowledge transmission actually gained from public disclosure as required in

IPR application processes. This level of analysis would clarify how new enterprises protect

their digital information (e.g. content and underlying algorithm) such as patent criteria of

technical effect, novelty and inventive step (WIPO, 2004) and how IP usage by early-stage

enterprises may be incongruent with existing laws and legal practices (Blackburn, 2003).

Research design

The research critically evaluates IC, IP and IPR in new enterprises involved in the digital

economy using a social systems research design to accommodate the three integrated research

questions. These knowledge assets are conceptualised as ongoing collective efforts involving

actions and processes focused towards the pursuit of economic outcomes (Nelson, 1982).

Actions and processes involve actors that may include the inventor, management team, IP

lawyer, investor and a combination of public and private commercial support agents.

Economic outcomes in this context are seen to evolve through the accretion of numerous

institutional, resource and proprietary events that co-produce each other over an extend

period (Van de Ven, 1993: 212). Since these events occur within a given a business,sectoral, regulatory and policy framework, a social systems approach provides a highly

relevant research design, given that the research aspires to understand the factors that

contribute to IC, IP and IPR creation and development as well as their market use, given a

particular business context.

The research identifies the case study as most appropriate for a social systems research

approach. Yin (1989: 14) states that the case study investigates a contemporary phenomenon

within its real life context, and that it is most relevant when the boundaries between

phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and when multiple sources of evidence canbe used in support of research questions. Given the need to understand IC and knowledge

management processes of the enterprise, case studies allow research to go beyond evidence-collection to illustrate or explain the decisions and motivations that underlie observed

processes (Sarantakos, 1993) and to identify and understand those detailed interactive

processes crucial to understanding a complex business context (Bryman, 1988; Remenyi et al,1998). Case study analysis is also expected to lead to the identification of relevant legal,

business and sectoral factors to qualify the external factors influencing management and

extraction mechanisms and value outcomes.

A participant observer approach will be undertaken to gain access to knowledge, perceptions

and other insights as the enterprise and its intellectual assets evolve over time. This approach

will explore the often tacit component of knowledge that resides in those people directly or


5/10


714

indirectly involved with the knowledge assets generated within each enterprise (Vincenti,

1990).

A total of 16 case studies of early-stage enterprises (less than 5 years) active in the digital

economy and possessing identifiable IP will be undertaken over a two-year period. Asmentioned above, IC, IP and IPR are conceptualised as a combination of knowledge and

people skills, physical and financial resources and external factors and the interactions

between these elements. Within each case, characteristics of the enterprise are examined

(origins and initial company profile, pre-commercial and start-up processes, evolution of IC

into IP and IPR, enterprise strategy and performance) that reveals IC, IP and IPRmanagement

mechanisms within each enterprise. A process continuum tool identifies, tracks and

examines IC, IP and IPR value creation and value extraction mechanisms within the

enterprise and how they change over time. Within each case, value outcomes are identifiedand measured to determine how both the enterprise and the market values IC, IP and IPR over

time. The integrated analysis described above makes explicit processes, outcomes and

changes to IC, IP and IPR within each case.

The research will also develop an expert panel of leading academics and practitioners with

assistance from the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) Research Centre for

Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law at Edinburgh University. The expert

panel will comprise a maximum of 24 (minimum of 18) experts that are identified by the

research projects team as leaders in the fields of business, e-commerce and law.

Figure 2 summarises the five elements of the research that drives the data collection process.

Each element is further described below

Figure 2. Research Design: Integrated Levels of Analysis

3) ENTERPRISE ANALYSIS:

enterprise strategy, performance

& IC-IP-IPR assets

1) IPRPROCESSES: creation,

development & management2) IPR OUTCOMES:

utilisation, valuation &

adaptation

4) EXTERNAL ANALYSIS:

legal, regulatory & business

impacts

LEVELS

OF IC, IP,

IPR

ANALYSIS

5) EXPERT PANEL:

business and legal expertise

gathering& dissemination


6/10


715

IPR Process Continuum (element 1): IC, IP, IPR characteristics for each case study will beexamined using a process continuum to examine creation, development and management

within the enterprise.

IPR Outcome Analysis (element 2): This element examines IC, IP and IPR utilisation,valuation and ongoing adaptation for the enterprise over time.

Enterprise Analysis (element 3):Characteristics of the enterprise are examined (origins and

initial company profile, pre-commercial and start-up processes, evolution of IC, IP and IPR

and their relationships, enterprise strategy and performance) that inform elements 1&2 and

reveals how knowledge assets are managed within the enterprise.

External Analysis (element 4):This examines the evolution of business, legal and regulatory

environments and effects on the enterprise and IC, IP and IPR. Case study data are

complemented by use of secondary data, legal, business and practitioner documents/reports

and insights and feedback from expert panel.

Expert Panel (element 5):Eachexpert will be contacted each month to respond to particular

questions posed by the research team regarding insights arising during the research and new

issues of relevance to the project and to offer feedback. The expert panel complements the

empirical research and provides a credible, relevant and up-to-date regulatory, theoretical and

conceptual knowledge resource.

Case Study Selection and Research Phases

The first phase of the research focuses on the defining, describing and examining knowledge

assets in early-stage enterprises and their use in digital commerce. This includes acomprehensive review of current research on IC, IP and IPR, current business practice on the

Internet, and identification of candidates for the expert panel.

The second phase of the research is the selection of case studies, collection of data and case

analysis. Cases will be selected in cooperation with the studys industrial partner -Technology

Transfer and Innovation Ltd (TTI) using their database of over 1,000 companies. The case

sample will include 8 early-stage enterprises (less than 5 years) with IC/IP generated for

dedicated e-commerce and 8 early-stage enterprises with IC/IP generated off-line but adopted

for e-commerce.

Case selection criteria include the following:o Early-stage enterprise based in UK;o Commitment by senior management, accessibility over life of project;o Appropriate IC (identifiable IP used by enterprise as a key competitive asset

(potential for copyright, patent, or trademark protection);

o Cross-section of business sectors within sample (computer software, electronicpublishing, financial services, others);

o Balance of cases with dedicated IC IC adapted for on-line use;o 2-3 cases in reserve to counter potential early drop-outs or closures.


7/10


716

Data will be collected through a regular schedule of monthly meetings with key actors of the

knowledge asset constituency for each case during the project. Case study data are

complemented by use of relevant documents and reports.

Semi-structured interviews each month will extract evolving knowledge within the enterprisefrom people who may assume more than one of the roles below:

Knowledge creator(s) and contributors; Company owner(s), entrepreneur(s), CEO, Managing Director(s); Legal staff and/or legal service provider(s); Technical staff working with IP; End-customers or intermediate customers; Collaborative partners (e.g. joint IP ownership, shared IP); Competitors.

The third phase of the research is the integrated analysis of cases following the same fiveelements of the research design (see Figure 2). It is acknowledged that any ability to

generalize from case studies depends upon the adequacy of the underlying theory and related

knowledge and qualified by relevant contextual conditions (Mitchell 1983). However, given

the sample size, data derived from the 16 case studies will provide multiple sources of

evidence to offer a broader spectrum of analysis and higher construct validity.

The fourth and final phase of the research will provide detailed analysis of research findings,

the formulation of implications, conclusions and recommendations and the writing and

presentation of final report(s). Research will be disseminated in various formats to target

different academic and practitioner audiences, to include a methodological workshop to

explain the social system approach to examining knowledge assets, conference presentationsand articles for relevant academic journals.

Ethical considerations

The research will gather information of a commercially and personally sensitive nature.

Informed consent will be obtained from all research participants and identities will be

codified to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. The information will not be used for

commercial purposes either now or at any point in the future. The research will adopt

guidelines suggested by the industrial partner TTI as part of their commitment to ensure good

practice between academic partners and industry. The research will also be conducted within

the terms of the University of Edinburgh School of Managements Code of Research Ethics.

Conclusions

The research provides a number of valuable intellectual contributions. It offers evidence to

explain how new enterprises entering the digital economy assess, utilise and develop their

knowledge assets and the costs and benefits of development, protection and disclosure for

enterprises. In this regard, the research establishes the applicability of different models of

innovation, resource acquisition and firm growth to explain how IC, IP and IPR evolve in the

critical early stages of the on-line enterprise. The research also establishes the relevance of

social system theories to our understanding of the roles and contributions of various actors,


8/10


717

legal regimes, sectoral and enterprise factors and the interrelations and interactions among

them related to knowledge assets.

The research identifies and describes the particular features of IC, IP and IPR, given

enterprise strategy and knowledge management activities, knowledge asset characteristics,market and sectoral conditions and given legal and regulatory environments. Examining in-

depth the evolutional development and use of IC, IP and IPR in multiple on-line business

sectors will establish empirical evidence of where business, economic and legal justifications

for knowledge assets and IPRs are in conflict with practice.

Finally, development of an expert panel of academics and practitioners actively engaged in

the knowledge asset field is expected to contribute significantly to qualifying case study

insights as they emerge in this research. The research is expected to leverage the benefits of

the expert panel to develop a more permanent network of interested parties to further develop

and explore this important area of study.

References

Arrow, K. J. (1999) Technical Information and Industrial Structure, in G.R. Carroll and David, J.

Teece (eds) Firms, Markets and Hierarchies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156-63.

Autio, E. (2000) Growth of Technology-based New Firms, in D.L. Sexton and H. Landstrom (eds.)

Handbook of Entrepreneurship. 329-347.

Bhide, A. (2000) The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses, Oxford University Press.

Blackburn, R.A. (ed.) (2003) Intellectual Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms,

London: Routledge.

Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research, London: Unwin Hyman.Bygrave, W. (1997) The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Callon, M. (1987) Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological

Analysis, in W. Bijker, T. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds) The Social Construction of

Technological Systems, Boston: MIT Press.

Callon, M. (1992) The Dynamics of Techno-Economic Networks, in R. Coombs, P. Saviotti and V.

Walsh (eds) Technological Change and Company Strategies: London: Academic Press.

Casson, M.C. (1990) Entrepreneurship. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Chidamber, S.R. and Kon, H.B. (1994) A Research Retrospective of Innovation Inception and

Success: The Technology-Push, Demand-Pull Question. International Journal of Technology

Management, 9(1): 94-112.

Churchill, N. and Lewis, V. (1986) Entrepreneurial Research: Directions and Methods. In D. Sexton

and R. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurial Research. Cambridge: Ballinger.339-65.

David, P. (2001) The Consequences for Internet-Mediated Research Collaborations of Broadening

IPR Protections, European Commission, Workshop on IPR Aspects of International

Collaboration, May 10.

Dam, K. (1993) "The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law," University of Chicago, Law and

Economics Working Paper No.19.

Davis, L. (2002) Is Appropriability a Problem for Innovations in Digital Information Goods?

Working Paper, Centre for Law, Economics and Financial Institutions, Copenhagen Business

School.

Dosi, G. (1988) The Nature of the Innovative Process, in Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R. R.,

Silverberg, G. and L. Soete (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, New York: Pinter

Publishers.


9/10


718

Fowler, T.B. (2001) The Impact of Technology on Intellectual Property Rights, The

Telecommunications Review, 33-49.

Flood, P., Heffernan, M, Farrell, J., MacCurtain, S., O'Hara, T., O'Regan, P., and Carroll, C. (2002)

Managing Knowledge-based Organisations - Top Management Teams and Innovation in the

Indigenous Software Industry. Dublin: Blackhall Publishing.

Kroeger, C. (1974) Management Development in the Small Firm. California Management Review,

Fall: 41-47.

Harrison, S. and Sullivan. P.H. (2000) Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Learning from Leading

Companies, Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 (1): 33-46.

Howells, J., Nedeva, M, Georghiou, Evans, J. and Hinder, S. (1998) Key Findings: Industry-

Academic Links in the UK, PREST, University of Manchester, HEFCE ref 98/70.

Koruna, S. and Jung, H. H. (2001) Patent Valuation, Centre for Enterprise Science, Swiss Federal

Institute of Technology, Zurich, in Proceedings of the 4th

PICMET Conference, Portland,

Oregon.

Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Lessig, L. (2002) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, New York:Vintage.

Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993) A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search, Journal of

Economic Behavior and Organization.2: 307-333

Lundvall, B. (ed.) (1992) National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory Of Innovation and

Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

Lundvall, B. and Johnson, B. (1994) The Learning Economy, Journal of Industry Studies 1(2): 23-

42.

Mitchell, J. C. (1983) Case and Situational Analysis, The Sociological Review, 31(2), 187-211.

Molina, A. (1990) Transputers and Transputer-based Parallel Computers: Sociotechnical Constituencies

and the Build Up of British-European Capabilities in Information Technology, Research Policy,

19: 309-33.

Molina, A. (1995) Technology and the Making of Europe: The Human Story and Lessons of a Large-Scale Collaboration, The Office of Official Publications, Luxembourg: Commission of the

European Communities (CEC).

Molina, A. (1997) Insights into the Nature of Technology Diffusion and Implementation: The Perspective

of Sociotechnical Alignment, Technovation, 17 (11-12): 601-26.

Molina, A. (1998) The Role of the Technical in Innovation and Technology Development: The

Perspective of Socio-technical Constituencies, Technovation, 19: 1-29.

Molina, A. and Gregson, G. (2002) Real-time Evaluation Methodology as a Learning Instrument in

High Technology SME Support Networks. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and

Innovation Management, 2 (1): 69-99.

Nelson, R. (ed.) (1982) Government and Technical Progress: A Cross-industry Analysis. New York:

Pergamon.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

OECD (2001) Science, Technology and Innovation Scoreboard: Towards a Knowledge-based

Economy. Paris: OECD Publications.

Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pitkethly, R. (2003) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Property Rights, Copenhagen

Business School-Danish Patent Office Lecture, Copenhagen February.

Porter, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business

Review. 68(3): 79-88.

Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., Swartz, E. (1998) Doing Research in Business and

Management. London: Sage Publications.


10/10


719

Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research. London: Blackwell.

Sarantakos, S. (1993) Social Research. London: MacMillan Press.

Stewart, T. (1997) Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York:

Guilford Press.

Tang, P. (2003) Management of IP by Electronic Publishers, in P.A. Blackburn (ed.) Intellectual

Property and Innovation Management in Small Firms, London: Routledge, 85-104.

Teece, D. J. (1986) Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,

Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy, Research Policy, 15, 285-305.

Teece, D. J. (1996), Firm Organization, Industrial Structure and Technological Innovation, Journal

of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31: 193-224.

Teece, D.J. (2000) Managing Intellectual Capital, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,

Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-33.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1993) The Development of an Infrastructure for Entrepreneurship. Journal of

Business Venturing, 8, 211-30.

Wiig, K. (1997), Integrating Intellectual Capital and Knowledge Management, Long Range Planning,Vol. 30 (3), 399-405.

World Intellectual Property Organisation (2004) The Impact of Electronic Commerce on Intellectual

Property, Primer on Intellectual Property Issues Related to Electronic Commerce,

http://ecommerce.wipo.int/primer/section3.html.

Yin, R (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.

Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (eds) (1995) Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of

Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test, Organization Science 6 (1):76-93

Documents

A Real-Time Evaluation of Intellectual Capital, Intellectual