The purpose of this paper is to provide a three‐dimensional framework to facilitate future definitions of intellectual capital (IC). The concept of IC is often ill‐defined and there is a multitude of different definitions for the construct of IC. The lack of a common platform for dialogue has negative implications for research and practice in the field as it has hinders cross‐disciplinary learning. This paper aims to presents a flexible framework in order to make important differences explicit and therefore, if adopted, facilitates the creation of a cohesive body of knowledge.
The paper utilises a systematic review process. This methodology was initially developed in the medical science to produce a replicable, scientific, and transparent analysis of evidence in the literature and has recently been broad into management science. A total of 938 papers were analysed to extract findings. The summary of the review protocol can be found in the Appendix.
Analysing the literature allowed the necessary components of a definition together with a list of possible sub‐components to be extracted. Definitions of IC need to be explicit about the: component parts of the construct; role IC will take in an organisation; and disciplinary perspective taken for the discussion.
This paper presents the necessary components of a definition of IC. If widely used, it would be able to facilitate cross‐disciplinary understanding and hopefully inter‐disciplinary research. It is seen as a starting point and open for future extension and development. A systematic review aims to limit bias and random error, however, it is limited by its scope on the basis of the defined research question and therefore delimited by factors outlined in the research protocol.
The major implication for practitioners is the understanding that IC can mean very different things for different people. Insights outlined in this paper will enable anyone to understand better the important construct of IC from different perspectives, which in turn should facilitate dialogue and avoid many unnecessary misunderstandings.
The paper is a first attempt to present a framework to facilitate future definitions of IC. If used, discussed, and extended in the future, it could present an important corner stone for better cross‐disciplinary dialogue and the establishment of a research field of IC.
