Preview

Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент

Расширенный поиск

СТРАТЕГИИ УНИВЕРСИТЕТОВ В УПРАВЛЕНИИ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫМ КАПИТАЛОМ В РАМКАХ КОНЦЕПЦИИ УМНОГО ГОРОДА: ОБЗОР ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2021-1-34-49

Полный текст:

Аннотация

Умный город – фундаментальное понятие городского развития, которое основано на технологических решениях и интеллектуальном капитале. Университеты – основные структуры, развивающие интеллектуальный капитал в современном обществе. У них зачастую имеются необходимые технологии, но существует значительный разрыв между имеющимися решениями в университетах и их внедрением в умном городе. Эта проблема возникла в связи с отсутствием трансфера знаний и, следовательно, передачи этих решений от университета городу, бизнесу, государству. Цель данного исследования состоит в том, чтобы представить существующие возможности университетов в создании, развитии, передаче и осуществлении интеллектуального капитала для развития умного города. В статье представлены модели интеллектуального капитала, который рассматривают как интеллектуальный актив, а его управление зависит от различных типов университета. В статье разработана оригинальная авторская методика проведения литературного обзора, в результате которой описаны возможные пути решения проблемы.

Об авторах

Д. Загулова
Балтийская международная академия, Рига, Латвия
Латвия

PhD, профессор, Балтийская международная академия, Рига, Латвия. Область научных интересов: развитие умных городов, управление интеллектуальным капиталом, трансфер технологий, тройная спираль знаний и управление знаниями.



Е. Попова
Институт транспорта и связи, Рига, Латвия
Латвия

PhD, профессор, Институт транспорта и связи, Рига, Латвия. Область научных интересов: развитие умной экономики, проблемы формирования человеческого капитала, функционирование международной экономики, развитие зеленой экономики.



Список литературы

1. Ardito L., Ferraris A., Petruzzelli A.M., Bresciani S., Del Giudice M. (2019). The role of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1(142), 312-321.

2. Arafah Y., Winarso H. (2017). Redefining smart city concept with resilience approach. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 3rd International Conference of Planning in the Era of Uncertainty. 70. IOP Publishing. 012065.

3. Ardito L., Ferraris A., Petruzzelli A.M., Bresciani S., Del Giudice M. (2019). The role of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1(142), 312-321.

4. Aristodemou L., Tietze F. (2018). The state-of-the-art on Intellectual Property Analytics (IPA): A literature review on artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning methods for analysing intellectual property (IP) data. World Patent Information, 55, 37-51.

5. Bengtsson L. (2017). A comparison of university technology transfer offices’ commercialization strategies in the Scandinavian countries. Science and Public Policy, 1, 44(4), 565-77.

6. Bratianu C. (2018). Intellectual capital research and practice: 7 myths and one golden rule. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 13(2), 859-879.

7. Brooking A. (1998). Intellectual capital. Core asset for the third millennium enterprise. Toronto, International Thomson Business Press.

8. Byrne J. A. (2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Research Integrity аnd Peer Review, 1(1), 1-4.

9. Cañibano L., Sánchez M.P, García-Ayuso M., Chaminade C. (2002). Guidelines for managing and reporting on intangibles. Intellectual capital report. In: MEasuRing intangibles to understand and improve innovation Management: MERITUM project. Madrid, Vodafone Foundation.

10. Chang W.S., Hsieh J.J. (2011). Intellectual capital and value creation-is innovation capital a missing link? International Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 3-10.

11. Chen J., Zhu Z., Xie H.Y. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: A new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Сapital, Mar 1, 195-212.

12. Collins J.A., Fauser B.C.J.M. (2005). Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update, 11(2), 103-104.

13. Dameri R.P. (2017). The conceptual idea of smart city: University, industry, and government vision. In: Smart city implementation. Cham, Genoa, Springer.

14. De Souza A.H, Urbina L.M. (2019). The intellectual property protection and commercialization management process in a technology licensing office. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 6(12), 315-331.

15. Dőry T., Csonka L., Slavcheva M. (2018). RIO Country Report 2017. JRC science for policy report. Hungary, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.

16. Ensslin L., Ensslin S.R., Pinto H.D.M. (2013). Processo de investigação e análise bibliométrica: Avaliação da qualidade dos serviços bancários. Revista de administração contemporânea, 17(3), 325-349.

17. European Commission (2014). European innovation partnership on smart cities and communities, operational implementation plan: First public draft. URL: http://www.ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/files/operational-implementation-plan-oip-v2_en.pdf.

18. European Union Parliament (2020). Intellectual, industrial and commercial property. Fact sheets on the European Union. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/36/intellectual-industrial-and-commercial-property.

19. Ferrari R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24(4), 230-235.

20. Green B.N., Johnson C.D., Adams A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101-117.

21. Greenhalgh T., Thorne S., Malterud K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931.

22. Grigoriev S., Yeleneva J., Andreev V. (2013). Technological capital management as an instrument of industrial enterprise innovative development. Proceedings International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing COMA’13. Stellenbosch, South Africa, 479-484.

23. Grigoriev S.N., Yeleneva J.Y., Golovenchenko A.A., Andreev V.N. (2014). Technological capital: А criterion of innovative development and an object of transfer in the modern economy. Procedia CIRP, 20, 56-61.

24. Guston D.H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399-408.

25. Hollands R.G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 61-77.

26. Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. (1992). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. National Bureau of Economic Research, 108(3), 577-598.

27. Jennex M.E. (2015). Literature reviews and the review process: Аn editor-in-chief’s perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 36(1), 139-146.

28. Jonsson L.O. (2020). Spin-off strategy and technology transfer office: Cases in Sweden. In: Entrepreneurial Universities. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.

29. Kalinina O., Alekseeva L., Varlamova D., Barykin S., Kapustina I. (2019). Logistic approach to intellectual property. E3S Web of Conferences, 110, 1-8. EDP Sciences. SPbWOSCE-2018.

30. Kandt J., Batty M. (2020). Smart cities, big data and urban policy: Towards urban analytics for the long run. Cities, 20, 102992.

31. Karchegani M.R., Sofian S., Amin S.M. (2013). The relationship between intellectual capital and innovation: A review. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(1), 561-581.

32. Keele S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (Vol. 5). EBSE Technical Report.

33. Kempton L., Goddard J., Edwards J., Hegyi F.B., Elena-Pérez S. (2014). Universities and smart Specialisation. Seville, Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

34. Kianto A. (2018). Intellectual capital profiles and financial performance of the firm. In: The Routledge companion to intellectual capital. London, Routledge.

35. King G., Persily N. (2020). A new model for industry - academic partnerships. Political Science & Politics, 53(4), 703-709.

36. Koh D., Santaeulàlia-Llopis R., Zheng Y. (2020). Labor share decline and intellectual property products capital. Econometrica, 88(6), 2609-2628.

37. Lai C.S., Jia Y., Dong Z., Wang D., Tao Y., Lai Q.H., Wong R.T., Zobaa A.F., Wu R., Lai L.L. (2020). A review of technical standards for smart cities. Clean Technologies, 2(3), 290-310.

38. Leitner K.H. (2004). Intellectual capital reporting for universities: conceptual background and application for Austrian universities. Research Evaluation, 13(2), 129-140.

39. Lopes J., Ferreira J.J., Farinha L. (2019). Innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3): Past, present and future research. Growth and Change, 50(1), 38-68.

40. Lövingsson F., Dell’Orto S., Baladi P. (2000). Navigating with new managerial tools. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 147-154.

41. Mar B., Burgman R.J., Roos G., Ballow J., Thomas R. (2005). No longer “out of sight, out of mind”: Intellectual capital approach in Asset Economics Inc. and Accenture LLP. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 588-614.

42. Marcet X. (2008). Open innovation: А new paradigm. 2008 eighth International Conference on hybrid intelligent systems, Sep. 10, 959-960.

43. Mariano D.C., Leite C., Santos L.H., Rocha R.E., de Melo-Minardi R.C. (2017). A guide to performing systematic literature reviews in bioinformatics. JULHO Universidade Federal De Minas Gerais ICEX. RT.DCC.002/2017.

44. Marinho A., Silva R.G., Santos G. (2020). Why most university-industry partnerships fail to endure and how to create value and gain competitive advantage through collaboration. A systematic review. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 24(2), 34-50.

45. McGrattan E.R., Prescott E.C. (2009). Openness, technology capital, and development. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(6), 2454-2476.

46. Meyer-Krahmer F., Schmoch U. (1998) Science-based technologies: university - industry interactions in four fields. Research Рolicy, 27(8), 835-851.

47. Moher D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Тhe PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine, 6(7), e1000097.

48. Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N. (2008). The Bayh-Dole act of 1980 and university - industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1-2), 115-127.

49. Murray-Rust P. (2008). Open data in science. Nature Precedings, 18, 1-23.

50. Nadeem M., Dumay J., Massaro M. (2019). If you can measure it, you can manage it: a case of intellectual capital. Australian Accounting Review, 29(2), 395-407.

51. Neves F.T., de Castro Neto M., Aparicio M. (2020). The impacts of open data initiatives on smart cities: A framework for evaluation and monitoring. Cities, Nov., 1, 106, 102860, 1-15.

52. Nilsson J. E. (ed.). (2006). The role of universities in regional innovation systems. A Nordic perspective. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School, Press DK.

53. Nonaka I., Nishihara A.H. (2018). Introduction to the concepts and frameworks of knowledge-creating theory. In: Knowledge creation in community development. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.

54. O’Mahony S., Bechky B.A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 422-459.

55. Paul J., Criado A.R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717.

56. Pedro E.D., Leitão J., Alves H. (2020). Bridging intellectual capital, sustainable development and quality of life in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 12(2), 1-27.

57. Perkins R., Khoo-Lattimore C., Arcodia C. (2020). Understanding the contribution of stakeholder collaboration towards regional destination branding: A systematic narrative literature review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 250-258.

58. Perkmann M., Schildt H. (2015). Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Research Policy, 44(5), 1133-1143.

59. Pollock M., Fernandes R.M., Becker L.A., Pieper D., Hartling L. (2018). Chapter V: Оverviews of reviews. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 6. URL: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

60. Ramírez Y., Gordillo S. (2014). Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(1), 173-188.

61. Roos G. (2017). Knowledge management, intellectual capital, structural holes, economic complexity and national prosperity. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(4), 745-770.

62. Ruhlandt R.W.S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review. Cities, 81, 1-23.

63. Salter A.J., Martin B.R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: А critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509-532.

64. Salvi A., Vitolla F., Giakoumelou A., Raimo N., Rubino M. (2020). Intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reports: The effect on firm value. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120228, 1-8.

65. Sánchez P.M., Elena S., Castrillo R. (2009). Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: А reporting model. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 307-324.

66. Secundo G., Elena-Perez S., Žilvinas M., Leitner K.-H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities: A dynamic approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 419-442.

67. Secundo G., Lombardi R., Dumay J. (2018). Intellectual capital in education. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 2-9.

68. Secundo G., Margherita A., Elia G., Passiante G. (2010). Intangible assets in higher education and research: mission, performance or both? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 140-157.

69. Secundo G., Ndou V., Del Vecchio P., De Pascale G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 1-21.

70. Shaffril H.A.M., Samsuddin S.F., Samah A.A. (2020). The ABC of systematic literature review: The basic methodological guidance for beginners. Quality & Quantity, Published online: 23 October, 1-28.

71. Spasić O., Tan S., Fraser J. (2018). Academic intellectual assets map. In: (WIPO) intellectual property (ip) toolkit for academic and research institutions. Connecting academic research with the economy and society. Oxford University Innovation, Consultancy Services Unit, Huddersfield.

72. Sveiby K.E. (2000). Measuring intangibles and intellectual capital. Cambridge, MА, The MIT Press.

73. Systems and software engineering vocabulary (2010). Geneve, International Organization of Standartization, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Inc., NY.

74. Templier M., Pare G. (2018). Transparency in literature reviews: an assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(5), 503-550.

75. Tjahjadi B., Shanty H.M., Soewarno N. (2019). Innovation, process capital and financial performance: Mediating role of marketing performance (Еvidence from manufacturing industry in indonesia). Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(1), 278-290.

76. Tocto-Cano E., Paz Collado S., López-Gonzales J.L., Turpo-Chaparro J.E. (2020). A systematic review of the application of maturity models in universities. Information, 11(10), 466.

77. Usai A., Orlando B., Mazzoleni A. (2020). Happiness as a driver of entrepreneurial initiative and innovation capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 1229-1255.

78. Uyarra E. (2010). Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1227-1246.

79. Vinayavekhin S., Phaal R. (2020). Improving synergy in strategic planning: Enablers and synchronization assessment framework (SAF). International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 17(02), 1-26.

80. Webster J., Watson R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.

81. WIPO (2016). Understanding industrial property. Geneva, Switzerland, World Intellectual Property Organization. URL: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_895_2016.pdf.

82. WIPO (2020). Knowledge transfer for universities. URL: https://clck.ru/DhKmi.

83. Yasin A., Fatima R., Wen L., Afzal W., Azhar M., Torkar R. (2020). On using grey literature and google scholar in systematic literature reviews in software engineering. IEEE Access, March 2, 36226-36243.


Для цитирования:


Загулова Д., Попова Е. СТРАТЕГИИ УНИВЕРСИТЕТОВ В УПРАВЛЕНИИ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫМ КАПИТАЛОМ В РАМКАХ КОНЦЕПЦИИ УМНОГО ГОРОДА: ОБЗОР ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ. Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент. 2021;12(1):34-49. https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2021-1-34-49

For citation:


Zagulova D., Popova Y. STRATEGIES OF THE UNIVERSITIES IN MANAGING THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL WITHIN THE SMART CITY CONCEPT: NARRATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW. Strategic decisions and risk management. 2021;12(1):34-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2021-1-34-49

Просмотров: 263


ISSN 2618-947X (Print)
ISSN 2618-9984 (Online)