Intellectual Capital: Revisiting an Analytical Model

Abstract

The world’s economy is experiencing important changes brought on by diverse factors, namely technological advancements, the appearance and diffusion of personal computers, high-speed telecommunications, and the Internet. These technological changes have influenced the corporate environment, with recent decades denominated as the information economy, the digital economy, the economy of knowledge, a risk society, and the age of quality and innovation. To designate the key concept of the new economic era as “intellectual capital” implies a classification and evaluation effort in order to proceed with its generalization. In today’s world, the study of a model capable of adding explanatory diversity to intellectual capital is very relevant. We observed a true panoply of concepts in the analyzed models based on a literature review. The conceptual evolution during recent decades has motivated many investigations in this field, resulting from the phenomenon of globalization, growing technological innovation, and the observation of significant disparities between the market value and the accounting value of companies. This article describes an investigation carried out, presenting an explicative model of intellectual capital based on four distinct patterns, which are the aggregating factors of the existing conceptual diversity. We present the identification of a model with two axes, x (the type of knowledge, from tacit to explicit) and y (the capital of knowledge, from human to structural), which represents the conceptual diversity mirrored in four quadrants resulting from the research carried out with an initial exploratory study and two following studies with 45 and 72 specialists. In this article we analyze the Martins model, which proves to be essential for systematizing and mapping the dimensions that intellectual capital includes. This model can be used to identify the different aspects of intellectual capital in an organization and thus contribute to its understanding, optimization and good management.

1. Introduction

In general terms, we can refer to the current epoch as the digital economy, which has succeeded the era of the economy of knowledge, and in which we find underlying qualitative and quantitative changes that have modified the structure, the operation, and the rules of the economy. In this new economy, the key to the creation of jobs and improved levels and standards of life are digital devices, following the incorporation of innovative ideas and technologies into services and products. It is an economy where risk, uncertainty, and change are the rule more than the exception.

Indeed, in the digital era, technology and knowledge have become the most important factors for economic life. These factors are the key ingredients in what we buy and sell and the prime matter with which we work. In the new economic order under construction, it is intellectual capital, much more so than natural resources, machinery, or even financial capital, that seems to have assumed a growing role as the main active element of a company, as it allows for the transformation of information into knowledge.

Knowledge is much more than information. Information is essentially data organized into logical archives. Information is turned into knowledge when a person reads, understands, interprets, and applies that information to a specific task. Without the intervention of intellectual capital, there is no production of knowledge.

Indeed, one person’s information may be someone else’s knowledge. If a person is unable to understand and apply the information in any situation, it remains simply that—information. However, another individual, obtaining the same information, may understand and analyze it in the context of previous experience and, through unique life experiences and lessons learnt, apply that knowledge in a way that the previous person might never have considered. Each piece of information gained in any of these situations is as important as any other. It is within this context that we propose to study intellectual capital and contribute to an explanatory model. Understanding intangible assets in the digital era and their influence on organizations is essential for better management.

Our research questions are as follows:

What is new in the proposed formula of intellectual capital?

What typological configuration does it hold?

Which ruptures are associated with it?

Which new forms of tension does it create between the individual and the organization?

In the first phase, we conducted a literature review, which is detailed herein, followed by the presentation of an approach to intellectual capital. The methodology and results are presented in the following sections. The last sections are dedicated to a discussion and conclusions, presenting an explanatory model for the reality studied.

The long path that corporate management has developed thus far will surely enlighten the understanding of the emergence of intellectual capital in the era of knowledge and consolidation in the digital era.

2. Definition of Intellectual Capital: A Brief Theoretical Sketch

When, in 1997, Thomas Stewart wrote Intellectual Capital, we were faced with the first attempt to explain how an organization’s knowledge may be transformed into its key competitive factor.

Indeed, the origins of the term “economy of knowledge” date back to 1969, when Peter Drucker staked his claim in his work, The Age of Discontinuity.

The traditionally accepted vision of knowledge, assuming an explicit conception, formal and systematic, is an aspect that solely underlies the administrative traditions, or more specifically, Western roots, in which an organization is equated to an information processing machine (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).

On the other hand, the theorists of the approach of intellectual capital (or knowledge management, in its active form) see an organization as a living organism constantly learning (Senge 1990; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Stewart 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Sveiby 1998a), and a recent investigation into this field presented the notion that the democratic participation of individuals in the workplace implies that they should have all the necessary resources readily available to them in an independent fashion (Grantton and Ghoshal 2003).

A company’s capital is now the people that, through networks or teams, give life to processes that generate assets for the clients, which is an important vector in the creation of value (Kujala and Ahola 2005).

We currently find ourselves in the early stages of a period that is little defined; however, we may be at the point of no return toward a stage in which people are the company’s capital (

Table 1. Industrial management versus knowledge management.

	Knowledge Management	Management in the Industrial Era
People	- Generating value - Primary task of transforming knowledge into intangible structures	- Costs or productive factors
Usefulness of learning	- Creation of new advantages or processes	- Application of new tools or techniques
Productive fluxes	- Oriented by projects and often time-critical	- Production lines based on the use of machinery
Economy/production	- Diminished marginal productivity replaced by the increased marginal productivity of knowledge - Economies of knowledge	- Economies of scale
Power	- Knowledge possessed	- Hierarchical position held within the organization
Communication	- Information transmitted via knowledge networks	- Information transmitted via organizational hierarchy

Source: Adapted from Martins (2000); Martins (2014).

).

Several authors argue that knowledge is the act or condition of knowing something with familiarity, obtained through experience or association. On the other hand, knowledge can also be described as a group of models that possess several properties and behaviors in their domain.

Concern for preserving knowledge is not focused on small groups of big cultures, as for years, organizations have evolved without guidance for the creation, distribution, adaptation, and recycling of knowledge (Martins 2000; Martí 2007; Nie et al. 2007; Abidi et al. 2023; Thaher and Jaaron 2022; Lopes et al. 2024).

The key factors that contribute to the lack of divulgence and retention of knowledge are varied. Among them, we can single out the lack of awareness of the necessity of knowledge and the lack of communication space, which would allow for the sharing of what is already known. Indeed, we have witnessed the rediscovery of knowledge that once existed and was lost (Pfeffer 2001).

The interest in knowledge management resides in the creation of a network built by rules that are used to transmit power to the people, power that is consubstantiated in the intellectual factor, cultural and social aspects, and physical memory of an organization.

The management of knowledge has become the nerve center of organizations, as primacy is given to the intangible over the tangible. This is the key aspect that clearly defines this new form of management.

Measuring intellectual capital in the context of Industry 4.0 is becoming increasingly important in order to assess the value of intangible assets (Hutabarat et al. 2024).

Above all, understanding the potential of intellectual capital (its components and their interactions) and the new and emerging digital tools and techniques will be key to building sustainable competitive advantages for companies, organizations, and societies (Ordóñez de Pablos 2023).

3. Intellectual Capital and Knowledge as a Dimension of People Management

Concepts are best defined according to the use people make of them. Thus, we can define knowledge management by observing what actors in this field are doing.

If we observe what is taking place between those who drive knowledge management forward (researchers and consultants) and those who use knowledge management, there seem to be two fields of activity and two levels (Brooking 1997; Martins 2000; Sveiby 2001; Aligica 2005; Zane 2023; Muftiasa et al. 2023; Dong et al. 2023).

First, there is the field of knowledge management as information management. Researchers in this field are essentially trained in computer or information sciences and are involved in the construction of information management systems, artificial intelligence, engineering, and networked work groups, among others.

In this context, knowledge is made up of data that can be identified and managed in information systems. This field of work is recent and has been experiencing exponential growth for a number of years now, chiefly assisted by new developments in information technologies (

Table 2. Knowledge management.

Field/Level	Knowledge «=» Data	Knowledge «=» Process
Organizational Level	“Re-engineers”	“Organization theorists”
Individual Level	“Artificial intelligence specialists”	“Psychologists”

Adapted from (Sveiby 2001).

).

There is also the field of knowledge management as personnel management. Researchers and managers in this area tend to be trained in philosophy, sociology, or management. In a general fashion, they are mainly concerned with assessing, changing, and enhancing individual aptitudes and/or human behavior. To these researchers and managers, knowledge is identified with processes in a complex set of dynamic aptitudes, know-how, etc., which are constantly changing. These actors are traditionally involved in learning and directing competencies individually, as psychologists, or at an organizational level, as philosophers, sociologists, or organization theorists. This field is much older than the previous one and has not developed as quickly.

In addition, we can identify two levels of perspective: the level of individual perspective, where the core of the investigation and practices are centered on the individual, and the level of the organization’s perspective, where the focus of the investigation and practices are centered on the organization.

Understanding how theorists and researchers think of intellectual capital is of crucial importance (Brooking 1997; Martins 2000; Aligica 2005).

Human and structural capital combine to form intellectual capital, with employee knowledge, skills, capabilities, motivation, and experience critical to value creation (Mubarik et al. 2022).

There are numerous recent studies that support that intellectual capital is essential for the success of new technology-based firms (Zane 2023; Muftiasa et al. 2023; Dong et al. 2023).

4. Method

For robustness, it is important to begin by presenting the method of the research conducted by A. Eduardo Martins (2000), which contained two parts: an initial exploratory study with recourse to three panels, and a latter study aided by two panels, which we will explain below.

The study of Martins (2000) presented a framework for intellectual capital/organizational analysis. As used in the past, “the empirically derived approach does not emerge from the observation of actual organizations, but from the ordering, through multivariate techniques, of criteria” Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983). Theorists and researchers have used this approach to evaluate the intellectual capital of organizations. As presented by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) in a two-stage study, theorists and researchers were impaneled to make judgments about the similarity of commonly used intellectual capital affirmations.

Initially, the investigator (Martins 2000) sought to obtain a wide compilation of studies conducted in the field through a revision of the available literature. After careful analysis of the investigation and published scientific production, Martins selected 37 statements that reproduced the diversity mirrored in that same research.

Thus, the recourse to publications from several sources, including from the USA, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, Portugal, France, United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil, etc., allowed for a representation of the multiple currents of investigation. Indeed, the affirmations about what the management of intellectual capital constitutes were initially reproduced in several scientific journals, science magazines, books, and even online. These publications are representative of multiple areas, from computer sciences to management, economy, consumer behavior, marketing or finances, organizational studies, accounting, and the internal documentation of several organizations.

In the initial exploratory study, three distinct groups were constructed. The first group was made up of seven teachers, all of whom held PhDs and who demonstrated an interest in the theme and focused their attention on the areas of organizational change, human resources, strategic management, corporate management, industrial management, and consumer behavior.

The seven teachers mentioned above constituted panel A of experts for the initial exploratory study. They possessed diverse qualifications and high theoretical training and experience in the theme being researched, with the diversity of their aptitudes and age range being an important contribution.

Similar diversity was observed in panel B, constituting 10 students randomly from among PhD students.

With similar diversity as the last two panels, panel C was composed of 28 post-graduate students.

The first phase of the investigation was solicited from the members of these three panels. The groups were asked to apply four rules of decision-making to eliminate affirmations that did not abide by the rules. These criteria were elaborated for methodological reasons and were similar to those used by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) in an investigation elaborated according to an identical methodology.

The four rules are as follows:

−

It is a unique indicator and not a junction of two or more;

−

It is a construct and not a particular operation;

−

It clearly identifies an indicator of intellectual capital;

−

It is distinct from all other affirmations.

In short, the objectives of the first phase consisted of obtaining solely individual constructs with a clear relationship with intellectual capital. A pertinent base to explain and validate the model of intellectual capital to be developed was constructed by reducing the list from 37 affirmations to 16.

To ensure the scientific status of this study, Martins resorted to the three panels previously mentioned, which constituted a well-diversified sample adequate for the purposes of the study (in the investigation presented by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), they solely used a group of seven PhD experts).

In the following phase of the research, we identified 2 distinct panels to increase the robustness of this study because it is a new topic with significant differences across the specialist fields, as has been typical in other research. The group previously designated as A was maintained, that is, seven PhD professors from several universities and in several scientific fields, now designated as group (a), and a panel of specialists were formed, that is, professionals linked to management related to the subject matter of this study, henceforth called group (b).

In this way, we aimed to verify the perceptions of these two groups on what is intellectual capital. The description of group (a) has already been explained; so, that of group (b) remains to be explained. This panel of specialists was composed of 72 individuals, all with professional activity in the field of management, namely financial management, commercial management, and computer direction, consulting, or project management, randomly selected through a questionnaire disseminated electronically in networks and databases of management professionals.

The subjects assessed the similarity between the affirmations (16) resulting from phase I (each one with all the others) in order to identify the cognitive dimensions underlying the judgement of similarities.

The comparison of similarities involved 120 pairs of comparisons, all of which were conducted by all of the individuals mentioned in phase II.

The questioned groups were asked to evaluate the degree of similarity between all possible pairs of affirmations resulting from the application of phase I. This evaluation resulted in a systematic comparison among the affirmations, which were subsequently classified on a scale from 1 (very dissimilar) to 7 (very similar).

The order of the statements was randomized, and the degrees of similarity were presented in a matrix specially designed for the effect and only after a detailed explanation of the task to be performed.

This set of similarities was later subjected to MDS (multidimensional scaling) analysis, with the identification of the underlying dimensions of intellectual capital as an objective in accordance with the “scores” attributed by the participants. This methodology has previously been referenced by several researchers (for example, Schopler et al. 1979; Farrell 1983; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983; Rusbult et al. 1988; Stuart and Podolny 1996), supplying results based on the experiments performed (Greenhaus et al. 1987), and thus, standing out positively from other conducted investigations (Morin 1994).

Indeed, this methodology for the empirical establishment of the conceptions of theorists and researchers has been mentioned as the only approach that provides results derived from scientific experimentation.

As shown in the next section, when the dimensions are juxtaposed, a spatial model emerges.

The model serves several important functions. It organizes the intellectual capital literature, indicates which concepts are most central to the construct of intellectual capital, and makes clear the values in which the concepts are embedded.

Indeed, in the exploratory analysis of an explicative model of the emerging paradigm, and as an effect of the panoply of theoretical ideas published on the subject, the construction of a perceptual map was achieved. The need to produce an integrative element of the perceptual diversity present in the previously conducted investigations set aside the possibility of using the traditional methodology of multivariate analysis because it does not consider the specifics demonstrated by theorists and researchers.

5. Data and Results

The individual correlations of the distances to the matrix of the original similarities were generally high, suggesting a significant level of cohesion among the members of the panel.

In fact, it was observed that the correlations of the presented distances were comparable to the values obtained in studies previously conducted that used the INDSCAL (Individual Differences Scaling, Carroll and Chang (1970)) methodology (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983).

• Group (a)

In the group of PhD professors, a maximum correlation of 75.2% was observed, in addition to a minimum correlation of 46.3%, with the average of both set at 57.4%. The perceptual map (Figure 1) resulting from the judgement of the individuals in this panel was thus reproduced, presenting two dimensions.

The x-axis (first dimension) reflects the types of knowledge, from tacit knowledge (right half) to explicit knowledge (left half).

The communities of knowledge, from individuals to organizations, are present in the second dimension (y-axis), with the upper hemisphere representing human capital, and the lower hemisphere representing structural capital.

The numbers represent the 16 statements selected in phase one and their positioning in the respective quadrant according to the responses of the panelists.

It should be noted that the dimensions assume strong explicative power both in global terms and in individual terms. As can be observed in the correlation between the dimensions (

Table 3. Correlations between dimensions.

	X	Y
Sum of the Products
1	1.00000	0.07379
2	0.07379	1.00000
Sum of the Squares = 2.00000

Source: Martins (2000); Martins (2014).

), this solution possesses a high degree of orthogonality (the more orthogonal (the closer to zero), the better the solution).

• Group (b)

The observed results were equivalent to those previously obtained for group (a), namely the identified axis and the spatial dimensions of the perceptual map, as presented below (Figure 2).

The values of the encountered correlations indicate the elevated reliability of the constructed map and the faithful adaptation of the reasoning of the specialists, as it was a group of 72 individuals, presenting an average correlation of 41.3%.

The two-dimensional representation indicates the expressed judgements of the individuals, configuring a schematic based on two axes, explicit knowledge versus tacit knowledge, and individual versus organization.

It can be observed (

Table 4. Correlations between dimensions.

	X	Y
Sum of the Products
1	1.00000	−0.03534
2	−0.03534	1.00000
Sum of the Squares = 2.00000

Source: Martins (2000); Martins (2014).

) in the correlation between the dimensions that this solution possessed, similar to the previous one, elevated orthogonality.

Thus, we verified the validity of the constructed maps. The second analysis corroborates the results of the first, which possess a greater organization of the sixteen affirmations in multidimensional space. The synthesis of the model is based on the previously obtained framing and conceptualization.

The identification of a model with two axes, x (the type of knowledge, from tacit to explicit) and y (the capital of knowledge, from human to structural), represents conceptual diversity mirrored in four quadrants.

The classification of the results of the four quadrants clearly assumes the following designations:

−

Tacit knowledge/human capital = knowledge of the individual;

−

Tacit knowledge/structural capital = knowledge of the clients;

−

Explicit knowledge/structural capital = applied experience;

−

Explicit knowledge/human capital = team.

In this way, we present the explicative model of Eduardo Martins.

In the presented model (Figure 3), the author designated the quadrant of tacit knowledge/human capital as the knowledge of the individual because, in reality, non-formalized knowledge within the individual constitutes a true source of value. This quadrant includes the theoretical and practical knowledge of individuals and their aptitudes of different types, such as artistic, sporting, and technical.

In contexts where it is important to promote high levels of individual performance in employees, the existence of individual knowledge and the team’s technical knowledge is essential.

On the other hand, when we encounter the same human capital, but with knowledge in an explicit form, we are at the team or group level, which shares the explicit knowledge existing within it. In this field, knowledge is presented to the individual in the form of facts, concepts, or tools.

If explicit knowledge is associated with structural capital, we are in the presence of applied experience, as the entire organization is the holder of formalized knowledge and, therefore, it is liable to be transmitted. This quadrant represents the set of shared knowledge, as synthesized by specialists (the scientific community), and which is recognized as the most advanced form of knowledge (Boisot 1995).

Lastly, the knowledge of clients was identified as resulting from the junction of structural capital with tacit knowledge, that is, that which is tacitly at the organization’s availability and results in, for example, interactions with clients. This type represents organizational knowledge in its practical form, which resides in the tacit experiences formalized in the collective (Brown and Duguid 1991). Despite being hidden, this knowledge is made accessible through interaction and is a distinctive factor in the performance of highly specialized teams (Spender 1994).

Therefore, it can be observed that the constructed explicative model of intellectual capital is based on four distinct patterns. However, the different existing theories reflect the intensity and focus on several quadrants, constituting challenges to the existing conceptual diversity.

If, on the one hand, a predominance of more structural visions is found, this would offer privilege to the quantitative aspects, with support for the indicators. On the other hand, the side that is more assumedly at the level of the individual takes a dominant position in equal models.

A company’s vision of knowledge suggests a role for managers in the application of their capacities so as to allow for the creation and integration of knowledge in their respective organizations, directing and controlling the processes of transformation of knowledge, and assessing, reporting, and auditing the results of those processes on a continuous basis.

These functions critically depend on the ability to identify and classify the advantages of the application of knowledge management to identify how it implements intellectual capital, how it interconnects with the strategic global objectives of the organization, and lastly, how it contributes to the company’s intellectual capital when compared with that existing in other companies.

It is in this context, and with due attention given, namely, to the diverse studies that relate intellectual capital with the strategic objectives of organizations (Brooking 1996; Stewart 1997a; Edvinsson and Malone 1998; Jimes and Lucardie 2003; Lee and Lee 2005; Mohaghegh et al. 2024), that the construction of an explicative model of intellectual capital assumes particular importance.

The results indicate that the approaches to the theory of intellectual capital are clearly insufficient. Analyzing the results from the model showed a clear separation between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, which has already been explored by some authors (Polanyi 1966; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Bontis 1998; Sveiby 1998b; Jimes and Lucardie 2003).

It should be pointed out that major investments have been verified as of late in the development of applied experience for companies intending to increase and share their knowledge (Quinn et al. 1996; Martins and Reis 2009).

It is a well-known fact that companies reach their objectives and maintain their raison d’être based on what they know and how they use their knowledge, without which natural resources cannot be developed and neither can a large part of the value of manufactured products, which have a high dependency on the degree of knowledge interaction.

Indeed, Stewart (1997a) defined intellectual capital as the intellectual material—the knowledge, information, intellectual property, and experience—that can be used to generate value.

The importance of managing the flow of knowledge, which we have previously mentioned, reveals itself as fundamental for a company to reach its objectives. Indeed, as Ghoshal and Nahapiet (1998) remind us, there is no methodology that fully combines the full diversity of theories present in the literature.

Thus, the intellectual capital theory has evolved relentlessly, with no concerns pertaining to integration (Bontis 1998; Ghoshal and Nahapiet 1998), given the swiftness with which new approaches spring up. Therefore, the theme of the management of intellectual capital is permanently present in corporate objectives, given that the intellectual active elements of a company are four times greater than its monetary value (Handy 1989).

6. Discussion

In summary, in a century where the market economy has staked a claim as the ultimate standpoint of contemporary society, with corporate units being the core of the economic structure, and faced with the growing proliferation of forms of communication, we bore witness to a crisis in the production of explicative theories on the emergence of a new form of capital, the intellectual capital.

The movement of knowledge is shaking the foundations of how an organization is created and how it develops, matures, dies, or is reformed. These are fundamental changes in the way we conduct business and in how the economy develops and society thrives (Rogers 1996; Martins and Reis 2009).

In fact, it is increasingly common to resort to the triad of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and organizational learning as a reference to the new era.

The new form of success is not material; rather, it results from information and knowledge applied to work to create value. When knowledge is applied to current tasks, increased productivity is attained; when knowledge is applied to new tasks, innovation is created.

However, today, we live in what resembles a forest of information, and those survival techniques that proved effective in a desert environment may no longer prove to be so. Consequently, whoever manages to best take advantage of this growing abundance of information, in the most economical way, will be the most successful.

Regardless of the existing conceptual diversity, different currents can be identified.

We can observe the association of intellectual capital, essentially, with human capital, where the contributions of Schultz (1971, 1981), Becker (1975), Flamholtz (1985), Ulrich (1997), Luthans and Youssef (2004), and Luthans et al. (2006) stand out. After all, people are the assets that define us, and the precious tool of production is the intellectual capital held by programmers and machinists. The people who execute the work possess real power (Belasco 1990; Zaim et al. 2022; Idrees et al. 2023).

In fact, if it is possible to demonstrate that human resources are a form of capital and not an expense, the value placed on people will be easier to justify and execute. Even though these are new challenges, the notion that intellectual capital must be created/managed/invested/given potential/, etc., is, and always has been, a theme present in companies specializing in services (Drucker 1969; Martins and Reis 2009).

There is also a growing interest in measuring and quantifying intellectual capital, with particular relevance being placed on the pioneering spirit of the Swedish company Skandia. Since 1994, this company has developed a set of indicators that it applies and publishes in an annex to its accounting report. The movement toward the valuation of intellectual capital is inevitable because measuring that which has the potential to be valuable constitutes an axiom of management schools. Moreover, differentiating competitors makes it difficult to describe measures of intellectual capital that may function in a universal way.

It is important to ensure that the measures taken reflect an organization’s capacity to grow and learn and to respond adequately to the constant upheaval of market conditions (Thornburg 1994). As Skandia’s first director of intellectual capital mentions, the problem is not only that of measuring financial capital but also possessing a balanced measuring system that ultimately creates financial capital itself. Typically, the objective is not to translate the company’s intellectual capital into monetary value but to evaluate whether or not the total set of knowledge within the company is growing and to suggest measures to improve the use of intangible active elements.

The aggregating and systematic branch of intellectual capital is indeed vast, with a panoply of definitions and approaches coexisting within it (Sonnenberg 1994; Saint-Onge 1996; Stewart 1997a; Edvinsson and Malone 1998; Ghoshal and Nahapiet 1998; Sveiby 1998b).

Indeed, conceptual diversity is derived from groups and origins that are so distinct from each other that the need to develop a model capable of conciliating its specificities was established (Neve 2003; Martí 2007).

Thus, we can conclude that the model presented in this article serves as an important tool for further research. In the same way that accounting, in its present form, and the use of double parties had their geneses in the Middle Ages, in the current time period, we are bearing witness to the necessity of a new methodology capable of providing us with a faithful image that corresponds to the present organizational reality.

The existence of a new dimension of value, in which the dynamic factor assumes particular importance, must be capable of supplying investors, managers, and all interested parties with an appropriate image of the permanent mutations that are taking place at any given moment in the organization. It must also allow this image to be produced in the least amount of time and with the greatest possible flexibility.

The analysis of the results enabled us to identify the complementariness of the formulas, which have evolved from trends to methods of management in the last two centuries, from the Industrial Revolution to the emergence of the modern corporation. The identified dimensions are as follows:

−

The primacy of production (“it is the product that sells”): In this dimension, it becomes necessary to define, write, and ensure reliable manufacturing processes.

−

The primacy of sale (“it is the brand that sells”): The main effort of this dimension consists of developing a relationship of faithfulness with the client and in obtaining permanently updated information on client satisfaction.

−

The primacy of human resources (“it is the service that sells”): In this dimension, the notion of teamwork emerges. This dimension is associated with the idea of complementariness among workers and the necessity of managing culture and the organizational climate as a support to the uninterrupted flow of communication between the final client and the totality of the chain of production, as defined by the notion of the internal client–supplier.

−

The primacy of innovation (“what sells is the capacity to surprise the client”): This dimension indicates the necessity of recruiting creative and enterprising collaborators (stars) that can anticipate the clients’ needs.

All four of these dimensions are the complex products of a long-lasting trend, with the basis of their encountered classifications constituting their complementariness.

7. Conclusions

The emergence of the study of intellectual capital comes from the need to quantify, in order to render manageable, the intangible active elements that have ever more weight in the organizations of the society of knowledge.

The model under analysis results from a scientific study that allows intellectual capital to be positioned in 4 quadrants (Knowledge of the individual, Knowledge of the clients, Applied experience and Team). This model explains the current reality and also contributes to future research that uses Martins’ intellectual capital model to analyze organizations.

The constructed model was demonstrated to be valid, as was the entire research underlying it, with the lack of explicative models being accentuated by various authors (Stewart 1997a; Bontis 1998; Ghoshal and Nahapiet 1998; Martins 2014).

It is fundamental to bear in mind that the present phase is one of conceptual indefinition (a pre-paradigmatic crisis/construction of a new paradigm) because it seeks to identify answers and devise new theories capable of justifying the new realities that lead to the emergence of new paradigms.

In essence, the analyzed models support the results obtained in this study (Bontis 1998; Ghoshal and Nahapiet 1998), despite the innovative and complex characteristics of the explicative model resulting from the empirical research.

The complexity of intellectual capital was elucidated from the panoply of concepts that are inherent or related to it, despite the fact that other studies (Spender 1996) approached the matter under a stricter perspective, obtaining results, as far as can be compared, very similar to those observed in this investigation.

Indeed, this model, supported by the results, raises several questions regarding the independence of the different elements of intellectual capital identified in theories (human capital, client capital, structural capital, internal structure, external structure, etc.). Furthermore, in this model, we can observe a dynamic process of an evolutionary nature, from tacit to explicit and from human to structural.

It was further observed that this research has the underlying message that intellectual capital is not solely an intangible asset per se, but also a means to an end.

It should be further noted that this investigation substantiates an exploratory study on a theme that is underexplored in terms of scientific validation (Stewart 1997b; Bontis 1998), as well as in the definition of concepts and studies that corroborate the results, as “one man’s knowledge is another man’s data” (Stewart 1997a).

Indeed, as stated by Pope John Paul II (1991), the primordial productive factor used to be land; then, capital assumed that role, and currently, the decisive factor is increasingly becoming humanity itself, that is, humankind’s knowledge.

The importance of the research on intellectual capital reveals itself to be truly engrossing, as it consists mainly of the discovery of a new frontier of an inexhaustible resource, opening the gateway to the world of knowledge.

Therefore, organizations are facing new challenges, which provides opportunities to contribute to this immaterial active element. However, there is one certainty: the world of knowledge is not compatible with the exploitation of individuals, as has transpired in the “brave new world” of industry.