Annals of the Constantin Brâncuşi University of Târgu Jiu, Economy Series, Issue 1, volume I/2015

Transcription

1 INTANGIBLE ASSETS ASSESSMENT - CASE STUDY ON EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH SUPPLIERS FROM KNOWLEDGE BASED ORGANIZATION VS. TOP 100 ORGANIZATIONS LISTED BY MARKET CAPITALIZATION IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS AT THE BSE NICOLETA RADNEANTU, ROMANIAN-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, BUCHAREST, nicoleta.radneantu@yahoo.com ROXANA STAN, ROMANIAN-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, BUCHAREST, seroxana@gmail.com EMILIA GABROVEANU, ROMANIAN-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, BUCHAREST, emilia.gabroveanu@gmail.com ABSTRACT: The paper presents the conclusions of a comparative study conducted using two samples of companies listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange organizations considered knowledge-based and companies from Top 100 of issuer after capitalization regarding the importance of some quantifiable and non-quantifiable variables for assessing the relationships with. To increase the relevance of the results obtained in addition besides mean and standard deviation was used ed-samples T. KEY WORDS: intangible assets, knowledge-based organizations, Top 100 companies, human capital, ed-samples T Test JEL CLASSIFICATION: M21; M41 1. INTRODUCTION The main idea from which this paper begins is the one of change, of human evolution, which led to achievement of a level of knowledge necessary and sufficient to create the transition background from industrial society to a new economic and social reality knowledge-based society. The specific problems of the knowledge-based society and of related organizations (knowledge-based organizations) are of topical interest and importance given that they are reflected on all areas of activity (economic, social, politic, etc.). accounting is not left out of this phenomenon, the more that knowledge the central element of the new type of society/economy/organization are intangible assets whose importance cannot be ignored [9]. Over time, internationally were phrased numerous definitions, classifications and methods for intangible assets valuation (eg Brooking, 1998, Reilly & Schweihs, 1998, Sveiby, 1997, Mar, 2008, Meritum Guides, etc.), but so far none of the evaluation methods have been adopted by the international accounting regulatory bodies, probably due to differences between sectors of activity in which operates companies, but also of the social, economic and cultural differences between the countries in which organizations operate, in a word because of the uniqueness of their characteristics, of the comparing difficulties and lack of an active market associated with them (Table no. 1). Researchers Brooking (1998) [3] Sveiby (1997) [11] Reilly, Schweihs (1998) [10] OECD (1998) [8] Table no. 1- Examples of intangible assets on international level Intangible elements customers and their loyalty, distribution channels, know-how, trade secrets, collective experience, creative spirit, problem solving abilities, managerial and administrative abilities of company s employees, leadership ability, organizations culture, etc. brand, reputation, seniority employees, employee education, organizational culture, customer relations, relationships with, etc. trade agreements, customers lists, distribution network, employment contracts, managements contracts, contracts with customers, supply contracts, trained labor force, commercial assets, copyrights, patents, license, etc. research and development expenses and their results, investments in trading, in organization of production, in labor relations, in management structures, in trade 147

2 relations with other companies, with and consumers, in the market research, acquisition and operation of computer products, software systems, distribution networks and supply chains, etc. Black, Carns and Richardson (1999) [2] Lev (2001) [5] Marr (2008) [6] Adams (2010) [1] company s good reputation generated from within, customer relationship and intellectual capital intangible assets based on innovation; human resources and organizations assets competence, qualification and intellectual agility of employees, processes, systems, structures, trademarks, intellectual property, relationships/connections with intermediary, customers, employees,, alliances, interest groups, creditors, investors, patents, commercial assets, license, software, etc. knowledge, skills, experience, attitude, length and skills of employees, relationships with customers, business partners (eg providers of support services), brands (how customers are seeing the products) and reputation (how stakeholders are seeing the company), organizational culture and knowledge, intellectual property, etc. Note: there have been highlighted (bold) similar items Unfortunately, nationally there is no pronounced concern about the definition and recognition of intangible assets. Current legislation include: OMF no. 3055/2009, IAS 38 Intangible Assets, IFRS 3 which does not solve the problem of these elements. In this context, we proposed to determine which are the most important elements for assessing relationships with through a comparative study (through the responses received after putting the question: Give a rate from 1 to 10 of each item below depending on its importance in assessing relationship with - length, structure by, big, new ) on managers perception of knowledgebased organizations and Top 100 companies, listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange - BSE (BSE, 2012) [4]. 2. DEFINITION, OBJECTIVE, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ANALYSIS 2.1. The objective and research variables The objective of the research is to determine comparatively (knowledge-based organizations and companies from Top 100 after capitalization) how important for assessing the relationship with /organization are the following elements: length, supplier s structure by, big supplier s percentage, new supplier s percentage Defining analyzed populations Knowledge-based organizations organizations listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange. Were identified 26 knowledge-based organizations listed on BSE, from which were received 21 valid responses. Companies from Top 100 of issuer after capitalization is a list of the most active companies listed on the BSE. In the Top 100, at the date of sending the questionnaire were 68 companies, from which were received 52 valid responses. Populations are independent, which means that no knowledge-based organization is part of the Top 100 and no Top 100 company can be classified as knowledge-based organization Research methodology and results analysis To establish a hierarchy of importance of the criteria within each type of company, was analyzed the significance of the difference between the average score obtained by each criteria. Being pair s observations was used Student t test for dependent samples - ed-samples T Test (Table no. 2) (Niculescu-Aron., Mazurencu-Marinescu, 2007) [7] 148

3 Table no. 2 Test for dependent samples (ed Samples Test) Knowledge-based organizations ed Differences t df Sig. (2-95% Confidence Interval of the Difference tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Upper no yes with - by with - big with - new by - big by - new big percentage - new with - by with - big the importance in assessing the relationship with - new by - big by - new big percentage - new Mean a. Knowledge-based organizations To compare the criteria with - by, with - big, with - new, structure by - big, by - new, big - new are obtained the following hypothesis (Table no. 3): H 0 : X length X structure and H 1 : X length > X structure H 0 : X length X big and H 1 : X length >X big H 0 : X length X new and H 1 : X length >X new H 0 : X structure X new and H 1 : X structure < X new H 0 : X structure X big and H 1 : X structure < X big 149

4 H 0 : X big X new and H 1 : X big < X new Table no. 3 Elements of descriptive statistic (ed Samples Statistics) Knowledge-based organizations Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean no 1 The importance in assessing the relationship The importance in assessing the relationship with - by 2 The importance in assessing the relationship The importance in assessing the relationship with - big 3 The importance in assessing the relationship The importance in assessing the relationship with - new 4 The importance in assessing the relationship with - by The importance in assessing the relationship with - big 5 The importance in assessing the relationship with - by The importance in assessing the relationship with - new 6 The importance in assessing the relationship with - big The importance in assessing the relationship with - new yes 1 The importance in assessing the relationship The importance in assessing the relationship with - by 2 The importance in assessing the relationship The importance in assessing the relationship with - big 3 The importance in assessing the relationship The importance in assessing the relationship with - new 4 The importance in assessing the relationship with - by The importance in assessing the relationship with - big 5 The importance in assessing the relationship with - by

5 The importance in assessing the relationship with - new 6 The importance in assessing the relationship with - big The importance in assessing the relationship with - new In case of pairs with - by, with - big, with - new, the calculated value (t c = 1,649, t c = 1,013, t c = 0,710) < t df82-1,α = 1,71, which leads us to accept the alternative hypothesis. In case of criteria: by - big, by - new, big - new, the calculated value is (t c = - 0, 553, t c = - 0,801, t c = 0,234) > t df82-1,α = -1,71, so it will be accepted the null hypothesis. As a conclusion we can say that the most important criteria in assessing the relationship with is the structure. The relationship between the four criteria is: Length < New < Big < Structure b. Top 100 Companies Hypotheses are: H 0 : X length X structure and H 1 : X length > X structure H 0 : X length X big and H 1 : X length >X big H 0 : X length X new and H 1 : X length >X new H 0 : X structure X new and H 1 : X structure < X new H 0 : X structure X big and H 1 : X structure > X big H 0 : X big X new and H 1 : X big > X new In case of pairs of criteria: with - by, with - new, big - new, the calculated value of t test (t c = 2,763, t c = 3,725, t c =3,386) > t df82-1,α = 1,67, leads to acceptance of alternative hypothesis, in case of pairs: with - big, by - new percentage t c =0,864, t c =0,837 < t df82-1,α = 1,67, leads to the conclusion that there are no significant differences, and in case of pair by - big, the calculated value of t test (t c = - 1,996) < t df82-1,α = -1,67, leads us to the conclusion that there are significant differences. For the organizations from Top 100 capitalization the relation between the four criteria is: Big > Length > New > Structure 3. CONCLUSIONS The emergence of the knowledge-based society and knowledge-based organizations emphasized the need to create a legal framework for development of relationship between actors that interact in the market, which led to another important transformation the one of accounting field. Thus, using ed-samples T Test we could analyze the influence of some quantifiable and non-quantifiable variables (length, supplier s structure by, big supplier s percentage, new supplier s percentage) on an intangible element relationships with. After the performed analysis it can be affirmed with a probability of 95% that the most important criteria for assessing relationship with in knowledge-based organizations is by, instead for the companies from Top 100 the most important criteria assessing relationship with is big percentage. The criterion which is the least important for knowledge-based organizations is length, and for Top 100 companies is structure. BIBLIOGRPHY [1] Adams M., Oleksak M, (2010) Intangible Capital. Putting Knowledge to Work in the 21st - Century Organization, Praeger, Santa Barbara, California [2] Black E., Carnes T., Richardson V., (1999) The Market Valuation of Firm Reputation, availabel at: [3] Brooking A. (1998), Intellectual capital core asset for the third millennium, Thomson Business Press, Londra [4] BVB, (2013), Top 100 of issuer after capitalization, in the last three months, on Bucharest Stock Exchange 151

6 [5] Lev, B., (2001) Intangibles. Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. [6] Marr B., (2008) Making the Invisible Visible: Identifying the Enablers of Future Value., Journal of Accountancy, vol. 206 [7] Niculescu-Aron G., Mazurencu-Marinescu M., (2007), Metode econometrice pentru afaceri, ASE Publishing House [8] OECD, (1998) Measuring Intangible Investment, available at: [9] Radneantu Nicoleta, (2011), Assessment of accounting information in the knowledge-based organization, PhD Thesis, ASE, Bucharest [10] Reilly, R.F.; Schweihs R.P.(1998) Valuing Intangibles Assets, McGraw-Hill, New York [11] Sveiby K. E. (2007) The Intangible Assets Monitor, available at: 152