The Making of the First Enterprise Wide Intellectual Capital Report for an European Research Technology Organization

As the biggest Research Technology Organization in Austria, Austrian Research Centers Seibersdorf (ARCS) performs research and development services for the economy and exercises an important function as a mediator between basic research at universities and the specialized applied research carried out by companies. As a node of the Austrian innovation system ARCS offers its own researchers and partners access to various sources of knowledge that they can then combine with their existing experience to come up with new concepts to solve technological and market-related problems. For Research Technology Organizations a challenge in an increasingly competitive environment is to evaluate and communicate their research and business activities and performance. Research is not self-explanatory, its benefits must be interpreted and communicated in a comprehensible way. ARCS is interested in improving the transparency of its intangible assets that are not supported by the traditional reporting system. With the Intellectual Capital Report*) published for the year 1999, ARCS wants to communicate the achievements and intangible value added it created during a period. In comparison with other organizations and institutions an Intellectual Capital Report of a research enterprise must reflect the specifics of the business, that is the broad range of results due to the specific tasks of a Research Technology Organization. To implement the Intellectual Capital Report, an integrated process oriented model that combines corporate strategy, corporate knowledge goals and knowledge processes with intangible results was developed and implemented. It relies on quantitative and qualitative data that are interpreted on the basis of the framework model. This paper will discuss the principles of reporting intangible assets in the context of a Research Technology Organization. After presenting the background, the model and experiences with the implementation of the Intellectual Capital Report are illustrated. A brief outlook on the development for the Intellectual Capital Report for 2000 will bring the discussion to a close.