The meaning of innovation capital
(2011) FEKP90 20111Department of Business Administration
- Abstract
- A larger study surrounding innovation capital has taken place at Lund University in Sweden. The purpose of the study was to examine what meaning the management, research department and the financial analysts perceive in the reported information about innovation capital. The authors have found some prominent patterns that arose during the interviews. The different perspectives between the research department and management affects the meaning of the reported information. The company representatives value information higher for value creation than financial analysts, and also, the internal information is more important for the value creation than the external information. Today, innovation capital is a small part of the discussion on what... (More)
- A larger study surrounding innovation capital has taken place at Lund University in Sweden. The purpose of the study was to examine what meaning the management, research department and the financial analysts perceive in the reported information about innovation capital. The authors have found some prominent patterns that arose during the interviews. The different perspectives between the research department and management affects the meaning of the reported information. The company representatives value information higher for value creation than financial analysts, and also, the internal information is more important for the value creation than the external information. Today, innovation capital is a small part of the discussion on what creates value in businesses. Since there is a lack of innovation capital information in the external reports, financial analysts does not use it as a basis for investment decisions. One can see how other types of information have increased the value of the companies in which the meaning is equal regardless of role or position within or outside the company. The problem arises if the perceived meaning differ both in companies and with the financial analysts. Different perceived meanings of innovation capital can lead to separate opinions on how important the information is for value creation. In order to provide information to improve the value creation, an understanding of the meaning is required. Otherwise, it will be impossible and unnecessary to measure and report innovation capital both internally and externally. Understanding each other’s interpretations of the meaning should make it possible to change and improve the reported information. Getting closer to a similar perceived meaning of the information is a necessity for development around the measurement and reporting of innovation capital. Therefore a study of the perceived meaning of innovation capital is needed. One can imagine how the innovation capital is communicated in a chain from its origins to a valuation of the information. It is in this chain, the study discovered what meaning ascribed to different people. Emergences of innovations were expected to arise in the research department where research managers compile information about it. It was expected that this information would be shared with the management who subsequently selects what information to be presented externally to fairly present the company's entire value, both financial and intellectual value. The model explains how the authors captured information in the communication chain described. The internal information was assumed to include innovation capital and report further in the external information. This study comprised six companies with representatives from the research department and the management. Also, four financial analysts have been interviewed. The following three sections explain the findings of the study. In three companies it was clear that the person who represented the research department and the person who represented the management had different perspectives when they answered the questions. The researchers often tied their meaning to an ongoing project or another part of the research. The person from the management explained from an investor or end-user perspective. This perspective arises most likely from the profession, that one gets used to tie information to its own reference point. This means that experience and work tasks might affect the way one perceives meaning of information. The different contexts are assumed to contribute to these perspectives. The study did not discover a certain perspective from the analysts. Another pattern found in the study was that the company representatives generally gave a significantly higher valuation of the information for its role as a creator of value in relation to the analysts. This applied to both internal and external information. One can assume that what the company reported externally (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1979881
- author
- Andersson, Johan and Åstrand, Rickard
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- FEKP90 20111
- year
- 2011
- type
- H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
- subject
- keywords
- Företagsledning, management, Management of enterprises, human capital, value creation, meaning, innovation capital, intellectual capital
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1979881
- date added to LUP
- 2011-05-24 00:00:00
- date last changed
- 2012-11-13 11:44:46
@misc{1979881,
abstract = {{A larger study surrounding innovation capital has taken place at Lund University in Sweden. The purpose of the study was to examine what meaning the management, research department and the financial analysts perceive in the reported information about innovation capital. The authors have found some prominent patterns that arose during the interviews. The different perspectives between the research department and management affects the meaning of the reported information. The company representatives value information higher for value creation than financial analysts, and also, the internal information is more important for the value creation than the external information. Today, innovation capital is a small part of the discussion on what creates value in businesses. Since there is a lack of innovation capital information in the external reports, financial analysts does not use it as a basis for investment decisions. One can see how other types of information have increased the value of the companies in which the meaning is equal regardless of role or position within or outside the company. The problem arises if the perceived meaning differ both in companies and with the financial analysts. Different perceived meanings of innovation capital can lead to separate opinions on how important the information is for value creation. In order to provide information to improve the value creation, an understanding of the meaning is required. Otherwise, it will be impossible and unnecessary to measure and report innovation capital both internally and externally. Understanding each other’s interpretations of the meaning should make it possible to change and improve the reported information. Getting closer to a similar perceived meaning of the information is a necessity for development around the measurement and reporting of innovation capital. Therefore a study of the perceived meaning of innovation capital is needed. One can imagine how the innovation capital is communicated in a chain from its origins to a valuation of the information. It is in this chain, the study discovered what meaning ascribed to different people. Emergences of innovations were expected to arise in the research department where research managers compile information about it. It was expected that this information would be shared with the management who subsequently selects what information to be presented externally to fairly present the company's entire value, both financial and intellectual value. The model explains how the authors captured information in the communication chain described. The internal information was assumed to include innovation capital and report further in the external information. This study comprised six companies with representatives from the research department and the management. Also, four financial analysts have been interviewed. The following three sections explain the findings of the study. In three companies it was clear that the person who represented the research department and the person who represented the management had different perspectives when they answered the questions. The researchers often tied their meaning to an ongoing project or another part of the research. The person from the management explained from an investor or end-user perspective. This perspective arises most likely from the profession, that one gets used to tie information to its own reference point. This means that experience and work tasks might affect the way one perceives meaning of information. The different contexts are assumed to contribute to these perspectives. The study did not discover a certain perspective from the analysts. Another pattern found in the study was that the company representatives generally gave a significantly higher valuation of the information for its role as a creator of value in relation to the analysts. This applied to both internal and external information. One can assume that what the company reported externally}},
author = {{Andersson, Johan and Åstrand, Rickard}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{The meaning of innovation capital}},
year = {{2011}},
}