This document summarizes a presentation on designing an intellectual capital management system for evaluation in higher education institutions. It discusses the assumptions and aims of higher education in the 21st century, including achieving excellence, providing solutions to important problems, and contributing to economic and social development. It also defines internationalization of higher education as integrating an international dimension into teaching, research, and services. Key indicators of internationalization include curriculum, quality assurance, foreign language provision, international programs, research, student and faculty mobility, and employability. The document then provides examples of management structures and processes for areas like curriculum development, research and development, and intellectual property.

1. Designing an intellectual capital
management system: evaluation process
through specific quality indicators.
K. Kalemis D.Ed., M.Sc., M.A.Ed
Instructor at the National Centre for Public Administration
and Local Government (E.K.D.D.A.) in Adult Education and
Lifelong Learning
Scientific Associate at the Department of Primary
Education (PTDE) in National and Kapodistrian University
of Athens

2. Outline of the presentation:
Introduction
Main characteristics of Universities
today
Assumptions
Internationalization of Higher
Education

3. 33
Assumptions
Universities of the 21st
century must be
global, egalitarian, democratic, diverse,
productive, sustainable, and

4. The major aims of higher education
institutions (HEIs) are: (1)
achieving excellence in teaching,
research, and community service.
providing solutions for national,
regional, and global most important
problems.
contributing to the development of
the national capital.

5. The major aims of higher education
institutions (HEIs) are: (2)
nurturing intellectual properties and
patents.
contributing to the economic and
social development of humanity
including public health,
improvement of crops production,
and cross-cultural and religious
understanding.

6. 66
Assumptions (Cont.)
 The 21st century job market requires a
technology literate and competent
workforce with the ability to create,
innovate, solve problems, and work in
teams.
 Investment in higher education is most
important and valuable as HEIs provide the
world's leaders, scientists, businessmen,
physicians, thinkers, and visionaries who
chart society's cultural, scientific, and

7. Assumptions (Cont.)
Not only do HEIs contribute to the
nation's human capital and technological
transformation but also to its social and
cultural identity.
HEIs cooperate with industry and
business, enhance innovation, creativity,
democracy, and wise governance in
economy, politics, entrepreneurship,
justice and equity

8. 88
Definition of Internationalization:
 "Internationalization of Higher Education is the process of
integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the
teaching, research and service functions of the institution“.
"(knight and De Wit, 1997).
 "Internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional
levels is defined as the process of integrating an international,
inter- cultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or
delivery of postsecondary Education“.
(knight, 2003)
(Huang & Lin 2007, p 69)

9. Purpose?
• " … the purpose of internationalization
of higher education is to enhance
students' ability to engage in job-
related problem solving and decision
making in ways that reflect knowledge
and respect for other cultures".

10. Refer to : (1)
The above definitions of
Internationalization of
HE relate to:
• curriculum design and
implementation:
1.content,
2.delivery,
3.evaluation &
4. modification.
• research, patents and
innovation
• graduate studies, joint
degree programmes
MA & PhD.
• student and faculty
mobility
• faculty hiring and firing
• partnerships with
business

11. Refer to : (2)
• international
foundation
programme
• cross border
education
• open course
ware materials
• blended teaching
and learning.
• national,
regional,
continental and
global areas of
education.

12. Indicators of Internationalization in HE
Indicators of Internationalization are informed by the main features
of international practice in respect of:
– Excellence in teaching and research
– Commitment to cultural understanding
– Mobility of students and staff
– Employability and generic skills.
as expressed in its curriculum, quality assurance, foreign language
provision, international programmes, membership in international
associations, international agreements and memoranda of
understanding, research, student mobility, graduate employability
faculty mobility, faculty recruitment and evaluation.

13. Curriculum innovation and modification

14. University Quality
Assurance Committee
Faculty Council
Faculty Quality
Assurance Committee
Department Council
Council of Deans
Guidance
Working
Group
Module
Working
Groups
Learning
Resources
Working Group
Research
Projects
Working
Group
Examination
Working Group
Scientific/
Academic
Working Group
Curriculum
Working Group
Department Quality
Assurance Committee
General layout of QA committees
and councils at the University level

15. Learning
Resources
Committee
Guidance
Committee
Modules
Committee
Res. Projects
Committee
Scientific
Committee
Library
Committee
Exams
Committee
Faculty Council
Faculty Quality
Assurance Committee
Layout of QA committees and
councils at the faculty level

16. Learning
Resources
Committee
Guidance
Committee
Modules
Committee
Res. Project
Committee
Scientific
Committee
Library
Committee
Exam
Committee
Department Council
Department Quality
Assurance Committee
Layout of QA committees and
councils at the department level

17. Performance ConsultingPerformance Consulting

18. Performance Consulting
– A process in which a trainer and the
organizational client work together
(“bundled solution”) to determine what
needs to be done to improve results
– Performance consulting approach:
• Focusing on identifying and addressing root causes of
performance problems.
• Recognizing that the interaction of individual and organizational
factors influences employee performance.
• Documenting the actions and accomplishments of high
performers and comparing them with actions of more typical
performers.

19. Elements of Training DesignElements of Training Design

20. The Balanced Scorecard
Framework

21. Balanced scorecard
• This is one of the best-known methodologies. It aligns the
evaluation of the people dimension to a company's strategic
aims through a balanced scorecard.
• The scorecard originally had four elements:
– Financial,
– Customer,
– Internal business process,
– Learning and growth.
• One of the main benefits of the scorecard approach is that it
provides a simple communication tool for internal and external
stakeholders.

22. Management of Intangible Assets in
Higher Education
 Think Academic – Act Business
 University Structures and Processes
 Identification and Controlling of Intangible Assets
 I.C. Report: A Measurement and Controlling Tool
 Case Study – I.C. Management in Spanish
Universities
 The Process of Research Commercialization
 Human Resource Management Improving IPR Output

23. University Processes
SupportProc.
VisionVision
Teaching
Research and Development
Continuing Education
Goals & Policies
CoreProcessesMgmt.Proc.
Administration
Controlling
Steering
Quality Mgmt.
HRM
Financing
Intangible
Capital
Tangible
Capital
Graduates
IPR

24. R&D in Particular
VisionVision
Desk
Research
Prototype
Development
IP Production / R&D
Idea
Testing
Adaptation
IP
Valuation
IP
Protection
Goals &
Policies
IPR & Innovation
CoreProcessesMgmt.ProcessesSupport
Processes
Adm
inistration
Controlling
Steering
Quality Mgm
t.
HRM
IP
Monitoring
Financing
Intangible
Capital
Tangible
Capital
IP
Exploitation

25. Conclusions
Global Financial Crisis has a major
affect on the role of Universities today.
Close relation between HEI and Market
Professionalism
New Subjects (almost 25 % new each
year)
Quality assurance in HEI.

26. Reference List
• Altenburger, O., Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. (2006): Controlling universities’ intellectual
capital: are the recently implemented Austrian instruments adequate?, paper
presented at the EIASM Workshop on Visualising, Measuring, and Managing
Intangibles and Intellectual Capital, Maastricht, October 25-27.
• Kaplan, R., Norton, D. (2004). Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets,
Harvard Business Review, February, 52-63.
• Leitner, K-H. (2010): Werkzeugkiste. Wissensbilanz, Organisationsentwicklung,
1/2010, 90-93.
• Leitner K-H. (2004): Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual
background and application for Austrian universities, Research Evaluation, 13, 2,
129-140.
• Sanchez, P.M. and Elena, S. (2006): Intellectual capital in universities: improving
transparency and internal management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7, 4, 529-48.
• Sanchez, P.M., Elena, S., Castrillo, R. (2009): Intellectual capital dynamics in
universities: a reporting model, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10, 2, 307-24.
• Secundo, G., Margherita, A., Elia, E., Passiante, G. (2010): Intangible assets in
higher education and research: mission, performance or both?, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 11, 2, 140- 157.

27. QUESTIONS ?
Thank you