Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Does intellectual capital affect the venture creation decision in India?

Journal of Innovation and EntrepreneurshipA Systems View Across Time and Space20198:10

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-019-0106-y

  • Received: 4 August 2018
  • Accepted: 25 April 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Purpose

Although the intellectual capital (IC) has already received much attention from the researchers in the field of innovation performance, there is still a paucity in measuring the role of IC in venture creation. The present study is an attempt to examine the influence of IC on start-ups.

Methodology

In this study, a large data set of 3413 respondents from India has been used. The data has been provided by the largest entrepreneurship research project GEM. A logistic regression technique has been applied to measure the influence of IC on entrepreneurial intentions.

Findings

It has been found that the components of intellectual capital, i.e., knowledge and skills, entrepreneurial opportunities, knowing other entrepreneurs, business angel, and educational level have a positive and significant impact on the entrepreneurial intentions.

Contribution

To the best of our knowledge, it is among the initial studies, which have examined the relationship between intellectual capital and entrepreneurial intentions. Only a few studies have already been done in developing countries like India by using a large data set.

Keywords

  • Intellectual capital
  • Entrepreneurial intention
  • Entrepreneurial opportunities
  • Knowledge & Skills
  • Network and educational
  • Global entrepreneurship monitor
  • Logistic regression
  • India

Introduction

In the present scenario, high attention is being given to the venture creation as it is considered as an important tool pertaining to economic development that generates employment at every level and enhances creativity and innovation with regard to opportunity and socio-economic welfare in the economy (Zoltan J Acs, Desai, & Klapper, 2008; Arafat, Saleem, Dviwedi, & Khan, 2018). Reynolds et al. (2005) contend that entrepreneurship helps in adjusting the economic system mainly by following the course of actions: “creating new businesses,” “refocusing of the present businesses,” and “reorientation of national institutions.” As the relevance of entrepreneurship for economic development has already been established, it is very important to explore those factors which influence the entrepreneurship in either way. Many researchers have found that intellectual capital also influences the venture creation capacity of individuals, and without understanding it properly, it would be very difficult to design any policy for the development and betterment of entrepreneurship (Khan, Arafat, & Raushan, 2019; Khan, Arafat, Raushan, et al., 2019).

The economic emphasis has gradually changed from manufacturing only to the more knowledge-intensive processes over the past two decades (Guthrie & Petty, 2000; Bernard Marr, Schiuma, & Neely, 2004). The firms that are aiming at gaining competitive edge and create value are bound to nurture their intellectual capital which can be in form of knowledge, brands, patents and trademarks, customer relationships, human capital, and research and development.(Dženopoljac, Janoševic, & Bontis, 2016; Forte, Tucker, Matonti, & Nicolò, 2017; Lev, Cañibano, & Marr, 2005; Sonnier, Carson, & Carson, 2009; Yi & Davey, 2010).

Intellectual capital has been defined differently by researchers, but the deliberations are going on (Andrikopoulos, 2010). Edvinsson and Sullivan (1996) define it as “that knowledge which can be converted into value.” It is the set of intangible assets from which the competitive advantage, profit enhancement, and value creation for the ventures can be driven (Bontis, 1998, 2001; Hormiga, Batista-Canino, & Sánchez-Medina, 2011; Sveiby, 1997). A lot of academicians define intellectual capital as the component that generates wealth for firms (Seng, Kumarasinghe, & Pandey, 2018).

Researchers have investigated the concept of intellectual capital through different dimensions. Some have expounded the concept of intellectual capital theoretically (Bontis, 1998; Roos & Roos, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Wu, 2005) while others have dealt with the concept through intellectual capital measurement models, e.g., Intangible Asset Monitor, VAIC™, Skandia IC Navigator, IC-Index™, etc.(Corrado, Hulten, & Sichel, 2004; Pulic, 2000; Stewart, 1997) and examined the relationship of IC with some key factors at different levels (Al-Musalli & Ismail, 2012; El-Bannany, 2008; Liang, Huang, & Lin, 2011; Schiavone, Meles, Verdoliva, & Del Giudice, 2014). The relationship between a firm’s intellectual capital and its operating performance, financial performance, and enterprise value is the recent research thrust area. (Chen, Cheng, & Hwang, 2005; Firer & Mitchell Williams, 2003; Raushan & Khan, 2018).

The managerial perspective of intellectual capital has been in the abovementioned studies; some researchers have measured the relationship between the economic performance of the firm with IC (Ya-Hui, 2013), and the relationship of IC with the venture performance or innovation performance has also been assessed (Agostini, Nosella, & Filippini, 2017; Yitmen, 2011). To bring the much desired socio-economic development, policy makers in developing countries are shifting towards the new venture creation (Audretsch, 2004). Researchers have also explored the role of intellectual capital as a factor towards the initiation of new venture creation or start-ups (Hayton, 2005; Hormiga et al., 2011; Link & Ruhm, 2009; Martina & Ahsan, 2013; Peña, 2002).

It can be inferred from the above studies that intellectual capital has an important role to play when it comes to new venture creation and the area has been progressively explored by the researchers, but the contribution of IC on entrepreneurial intentions needs to be explored (Kamath, 2017). The impact of intellectual capital on the entrepreneurial intentions has been analyzed in this study as the intention is considered as an important factor for predicting entrepreneurial activity (Krueger, Jr Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). The impact of intellectual capital on the entrepreneurial intentions is the main objective of this study. Intellectual capital has established its importance with businesses these days; hence, it is being considered by the authors that the IC would be relevant for venture creation. A number of studies have analyzed the impact of intellectual capital on entrepreneurship intention (Arafat & Saleem, 2017; Matricano, 2016; Ramos-Rodríguez, José-Aurelio, José-Daniel, & Ruiz-Navarro, 2010; Ramos-Rodríguez, Medina-Garrido, & Ruiz-Navarro, 2012), but those researches were conducted in different context and demographic settings from this study as it is being conducted in India which is a developing nation economy. The factors influencing a business in a developed country are very different from that of the developing country, a fact that has been highlighted by previous studies that also needs to be reinstated. Therefore, we assume that the study of intellectual capital and the new venture creation relationship will come up with some new and interesting insights that can be utilized for the formation of entrepreneurial promotional policies.

To measure the effect of IC on the venture creation, this paper is structured in the following manner. In the “Literature review” section, the relevant literature has been reviewed for understanding the concept of IC. After mentioning the detailed description of the dependent variable (entrepreneurial intentions), the IC has also explained in lieu of the entrepreneurial studies. In the “Hypotheses of the study” section, the hypotheses of the study have been discussed. In the “Research methodology” section, the research methodology (binary logistic regression model) and the research design are elaborated. The empirical part has been done by the help of secondary data provided by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) website for 2015 in India. In the “Results and discussion” section, the findings of the analysis have been discussed. In the “Implications of the study” section, the managerial implications related to the study have been given. In the “Limitations” section, the limitations of the study have been highlighted. At last, in the “Conclusion” section, the overall conclusion of the study has been discussed.

Literature review

The concept of IC has been applied to different dimensions as from financial performance to the innovation performance; therefore, it can be supposed that the IC also plays a significant role in the venture creation or start-up intentions. The IC theorists believe that knowledge improves an individual’s cognitive skills and allow them to work more productively and efficiently (Becker, 1964; Mincer, 1974; Schultz, 1959). Entrepreneurs discover opportunities easily because their experiences and education help them to understand the value of new information easily as compared to others (Roberts, 1991; Shane, 2000). The knowledge base that constitutes the intellectual capital and that could determine the individual’s capacity to recognize business opportunities consists of, among other factors, their educational level, their knowledge and skills relating to business start-ups, and their previous experience as an entrepreneur. Intellectual capital has been classified into different components by different authors. It is also very difficult to decide which classification is incorrect. This study considers knowledge and skills, entrepreneurial opportunities, networking, and education as the proxy measures for calculating the intellectual capital of Indians.

Entrepreneurial intention

The main research question which has been framed in this research paper is to measure the relevancy of IC in aspiring entrepreneurs. Does the IC have any relevant impact on venture creation or not? T8he proxy measure for entrepreneurial intention (latent variable) is the expectation to start-up, i.e., the inclination of intentional entrepreneurs towards initiating new ventures.

It is the set of reasons that determines individuals to engage in a particular behavior or for venture creation (Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003). The intention to start a new venture generally depends on three perceptions: individual perception (knowing existing entrepreneurs or self efficacy), perception of economic opportunities (entrepreneurial opportunities), and socio-cultural perceptions (Arafat et al., 2018; Khan, Arafat, & Raushan, 2019; Liñán, Santos, & Fernández, 2011).

In the present scenario, researchers are keenly interested in knowing the propensity towards entrepreneurship (Ajzen, 1991; Baron, 2004; Bird, 1988; Krueger et al., 2000; Lee & Wong, 2004; Matricano, 2016; Shaver & Scott, 1991). It is quite clear from whatever has been discussed so far that the entrepreneurs have a stronger inclination towards start-ups or venture creation while the non-entrepreneurs have a weaker inclination or even have no inclination. Entrepreneurial intentions have been presumed as a dependent variable and it is a proxy measure for inclination towards entrepreneurship or venture creation.

Knowledge and skills

These skills and knowledge are not necessarily linked to the educational level. In fact, some authors claim that entrepreneurs frequently possess a wide range of abilities without having an advanced or specific education (Leazar, 2005; Murphy, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1991). These skills and knowledge generally acquired through past experiences and those people who possess the knowledge and skills are more likely to start their own business (Shane, 2003; Szivas, 2001). If individuals consider they have the necessary skills, knowledge, and ability to start their own business, they would be more inclined to engage in activities relating to entrepreneurship (such as opportunity recognition). The effect of knowledge and skills on the start-up intentions of Indians has been hypothesized on the basis of the above discussion.

Ability to recognize opportunities

The start-ups can use the acts of recognition, discovery, or creation for knowledge creation (Alvarez & Barney, 2008; Matricano, 2016; Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri, & Venkataraman, 2005). The aspiring entrepreneurs can use the entrepreneurial opportunities which already exist, mainly technological and social contexts. The entrepreneurs need to recognize them through systematic research (Arafat & Saleem, 2017; Khan, Arafat, Raushan, et al., 2019). In the other dimension, the entrepreneurs are being supposed to play a more important role by possessing some specific capabilities to discover new entrepreneurial opportunities which already exist in the economic context, e.g., temporary gaps occurring in the market (Kirzner, 1973).

In both the abovementioned acts, the relationship between entrepreneurs and opportunities is dualistic, but in the last act, it is no longer dualistic. The entrepreneurs are bound to create entrepreneurial opportunities for their survival. It is known as the act of creation.

It is quite clear that the entrepreneurs must have to collaborate with the knowledge in the external environment (recognition or discovery) or predict the external environment (creation) in order to generate new knowledge which possesses the entrepreneurial opportunities (Matricano, 2016).

It is presumed here that the identification of new entrepreneurial opportunities neither belongs to the aspiring entrepreneurs nor the external environment. In fact, they are a third-person opportunity (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006), i.e., a possible opportunity for someone (registered patents represent a clear example). The entrepreneurial opportunities are expected to affect the start-up intentions, and the ability to recognize entrepreneurial abilities is the basis for this assumption (Matricano, 2016). The main argument is that the entrepreneurial opportunities are directly proportional to the entrepreneurship intentions of Indians.

Networking

It is all about the value of relationships with different stakeholders who are not related internally to the business, such as the knowledge of market channels, customers, suppliers, and regulatory agencies (Maditinos, Mandilas, Gstraunthaler, & Alonso, 2009). It includes not only the set of external relationships established by the firm, but also other dimensions such as branding and reputation. It consists the understanding planted in various relationships of an organization; these relationships are with customers, competitors, suppliers, trade associations, or government bodies (Nick Bontis, 1999; Lowendahl, 2005; Sveiby, 1997; Urde, 1999; Wong & Merrilles, 2008).

The relationships are being created by both the established business organizations as well as the entrepreneurs (Johannisson, 1986, 1988; Matricano, 2016; Starr & Macmillan, 1990). These relationships are very important for the entrepreneurs because they need to acquire the resources and the guidance from the existing entrepreneurs at every stage of their ventures. By the help of their entrepreneurial networks, they can acquire the resources in the short term through a planned or intended strategy while in the long term by implementing an unplanned or unintended strategy (Galkina, 2013). The networking can be described in two ways: networking with other entrepreneurs and business angel.

Networking with existing entrepreneurs

It is always better for the entrepreneurs to involve with known existing entrepreneurs in their networks as the trust-based relationship already exists between them and many things can be done informally also while making entrepreneurial network among the unknown people is a time-consuming and formal process (Greve, 1995; Larson & Starr, 1993; Smith & Lohrke, 2008).

The entrepreneurial networks are always beneficial for the entrepreneurs because they get the guidance from those people who already have their own experiences. Apart from the guidance, entrepreneurs also get monetary help form their friend and family which is known as business angel or informal loans. The entrepreneurial networks are the outcome of their relationship with the existing entrepreneurs who are external to the business as well.

Business angel

Business angels use their previous knowledge of entrepreneurship in making investment decisions (Maula, Autio, & Arenius, 2005). From the perspective of TPB, previous experience as an entrepreneur can lead to the development of a positive attitude towards investment in entrepreneurship (Ajzen, 1991). Further, a positive attitude can also lead to the outcome behavior, i.e., becoming an entrepreneur. They are more likely to assume more risk. Thus, we can conclude that business angels are most likely to become future entrepreneurs (Amit, Glosten, & Muller, 1993; Mancuso, 1975). This idea is also consistent with “role theory.” The business angels are more likely to assume the roles of entrepreneurs (Veciana, 2007). The primary reason for adopting such roles is the exposure, familiarity, and the awareness of success stories of entrepreneurs whom they have been funding. Similarly, the network theory suggests that the members of a network (like entrepreneurs in our case) can be important sources of information related to ideas, information, and resources that are critical to a creation of a firm (Burge, 2017; Larson & Starr, 1993; Ramos-rodríguez et al., 2012; Santiago-Roman, 2013).

Education

The educational level has been treated as a demographic variable by some researchers (Arenius & Minniti, 2005) while others treat it as a part of the entrepreneurial intellectual capital (Davidsson & Honig, 2003). It is found in some researches that the entrepreneurs generally have tacit knowledge rather than having a formal education (Leazar, 2005; Murphy et al., 1991). It had been contradicted by some other researches who found that a high educational level has a positive impact on the creation of technology firms in rich countries (Blanchflower, 2004).

Actually, the acceptability of education system depends upon the reciprocity among the countries. Those people who would like to create something in the knowledge industry are being supposed to have a high educational level, while it would not be necessary if they just want to exploit a market opportunity (Arenius & Minniti, 2005).

Hypotheses of the study

The main objective of this study is to measure the impact of intellectual capital on venture creation or start-up intentions. To fulfill this objective, it is necessary to examine the relationship of all four components of IC with start-up intentions.

Both intellectual capital and entrepreneurial intentions are latent variables, so we need to take some proxy measures to calculate the latent variables. The intellectual capital has been measured by the help of new entrepreneurial opportunities, the amount of knowledge, skills, and expertise carried by the aspiring entrepreneurs, the relations with existing entrepreneurs, business angel, and education. The entrepreneurial intention has been measured by the expectation to start a new business after some time. All these variables have been measured by the secondary data extracted by GEM.

In Fig. 1, we have shown the hypothesized relationship between the components of intellectual capital and the entrepreneurial intention.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Relationship between the components of intellectual capital with entrepreneurial intentions

H1: Knowledge and skills have a positive influence on entrepreneurial intentions.

H2: Entrepreneurial opportunities have a positive influence on entrepreneurial intentions.

H3i: Networking has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention.

H3ii: Being a business angel has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intentions.

H4: Educational level has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intentions.

Research methodology

Data

It has been stated earlier that the present study is based on a cross-sectional survey and the data for empirical analysis have been extracted from the GEM database. The main aim of this study is to measure the effect of intellectual capital on the start-up intentions in India for 2015. The data used for the analysis has been extracted from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) database.

The questionnaires of GEM also contain items related to intellectual capital and entrepreneurial intentions which help to examine the entrepreneurial activity up to a decent level (Reynolds et al., 2005). The GEM database is not meant to provide all the information about the entrepreneurial intentions, and it is also quite difficult to analyze all the variables available, so only a few can be analyzed (Arafat & Saleem, 2017). The data of GEM is generated through a large international survey of general Adult Population Survey (APS), so it has overcome the previous limitations. This data set relies upon the interviews of 3413 respondents from India. The data had been gathered accordingly to the collection procedure of GEM which had been discussed by Reynolds et al. 2005. Moreover, the survey provides data on many variables; we selected those variables which are coherent to the objectives of this study.

Measures

Table 1 provides the detailed description of the dependent and independent variables.
Table 1

Description of variables

Dependent variables

Description

 

Entrepreneurial intention

Do you expect to start a new business in the next 3 years?

If yes = 1

No = 0

Independent variables

Perceives to have the required knowledge and skills to start a business

If yes = 1

No = 0

Perceives good opportunities to start a business in the area where you live

If yes = 1

No = 0

Personally knows someone who started a firm in the past 2 years

If yes = 1

No = 0

Intellectual capital

In the past 3 years, you have provided personal funds to help other people start up a business. Do not include investment in bonds, shares, or mutual funds

If yes = 1

No = 0

Perceives harmonized educational attainment

If yes = 1

No = 0

Logistic regression

The logistic regression model has been used because the dependent variables as well as the independent variables are both dichotomous or categorical. It helps in estimating that a respondent belongs to a particular group (dependent = 1) or not (independent = 0).

Results and discussion

Analysis of this research has been divided into three parts: descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression analysis.

Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics (Table 2) show that only 15% of individuals are expected to start their own business in the next 3 years, 42% of individuals are confident in their own skills and knowledge to start a new business, 42% see good opportunities, or having structural capital, in starting their own business, 37% of the respondents have relationship with existing entrepreneur, and only 3% of people have provided personal funds to others.
Table 2

Descriptive statistics

 

Number

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. deviation

Do you expect to start a new business in the next 3 years?

3370

0

 

.15

.354

Do you have the knowledge, skill, and experience required to start a new business?

3266

0

 

.42

.493

In the next 6 months, will there be good opportunities for starting a business in the area where you live?

3244

0

 

.42

.493

Do you know someone personally who started a business in the past 2 years?

3342

0

1

.37

.483

In the past 3 years, you have provided personal funds to help other people start up a business. Do not include investment in bonds, shares, or mutual funds

3397

0

1

.03

.178

GEM harmonized educational attainments

3413

0

1720

860.12

567.950

Valid N (listwise)

3086

    

Correlation

The correlation matrix (see Table 3) provides preliminary support for the hypotheses. Table 3 depicts that all the variables except education are correlated with the entrepreneurial intention in the expected direction. However, some of them are negatively correlated also with start-up intention.
Table 3

Correlations

 

Entrepreneurial intention

Knowledge and skills

Entrepreneurial opportunities

Knowing other entrepreneurs

Business angel

Education level

Entrepreneurial intention

1

     

Knowledge and skills

− .296**

1

    

Entrepreneurial opportunities

− .318**

− .308**

1

   

Knowing other entrepreneurs

− .149**

− .199**

− .235**

1

  

Business angel

− .055**

.016

.022

− .096**

1

 

Education level

− .601**

− .054

− .018*

− .050**

.007**

1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Logistic regression

In the omnibus test (Table 4), if all the values are lesser than 0.05, it shows that the goodness of fit of the model is acceptable.
Table 4

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

 

Chi-square

df

Sig.

Step 1

Step

375.570

5

.000

Block

375.570

5

.000

Model

375.570

5

.000

Significant at the 0.05 level

To measure the goodness of fit, the Hosmer and Lemeshow test has been used. If the p value is greater than .05, it is considered as significant and the hypothesis of an adequate model fit is accepted. In this way, Table 5 shows the model is a good fit.
Table 5

Hosmer and Lemeshow test

Step

Chi-square

df

Sig.

1

13.803

8

.087

Significant at the 0.05 level

Table 6 presents the binomial logistic regression results with the all intellectual capital factors showing the impact on entrepreneurial intention. All the intellectual capital factors have been found significant in influencing entrepreneurial intention.
Table 6

Logistic regression (dependent variable: entrepreneurial intention)

 

B

S.E.

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp (B)

Intellectual capital

Knowledge and skills

1.008

.127

62.547

1

.000

2.739

Entrepreneurial opportunities

1.004

.129

60.478

1

.000

2.729

Knowing other entrepreneurs

.405

.117

11.977

1

.001

1.499

Business angel

1.029

.221

21.733

1

.000

2.799

Education level

  

5.523

1

0.19

1.000

Constant

− 3.298

.142

536.996.

1

.000

.037

Significant at the 0.05 level

In hypothesis 1, it was proposed that knowledge, skills, competences, and expertise positively affect the venture creation intention. The marginal effect for this variable is positive and significant (p < .01) with regard to the regression confirming the hypothesis. The odds ratio for this variable is 2.739 which mean those individuals who feel that they have required skill, knowledge, competences, and expertise are more than 2.5 times more likely to start their own business. This finding is also in congruence with previous research examining the influence of knowledge, skill, and entrepreneurial ability on entrepreneurial propensity (Ahmad, Xavier, & Abu Bakar, 2014; Fernández, Liñán, & Santos, 2009; Guzmán-Alfonso & Guzmán-Cuevas, 2012; Honjo, 2015; Liñán et al., 2011; Matricano, 2016; Nishimura & Tristan, 2011; Noguera, Alvarez, & Urbano, 2013; Pathak & Laplume, 2015; Puriwat & Tripopsakul, 2015; Tsai, Chang, & Peng, 2016; Vidal-suñé & López-Panisello, 2013; Wennberg, Pathak, & Autio, 2013) .

Hypothesis 2 proposed that opportunity identification increases the probability of being an entrepreneur. The marginal effect for this variable is positive and significant (p < .01) with regard to the regression supporting this hypothesis. In fact, according to the results, this is the variable analyzed that has the strongest effect on the dependent variable, since its odds ratio is 2.729, indicating that opportunity identification increases the likelihood of new start-up more than 2.5 times than the rest of the individuals. This result also coincides with the results of work examining the same relationship (Ahmad et al., 2014; Bux & Honglin, 2016; Fernández et al., 2009; Honjo, 2015; Liñán et al., 2011; Matricano, 2016; Nishimura & Tristan, 2011; Pathak & Laplume, 2015; Puriwat & Tripopsakul, 2015; Ramos-rodríguez et al., 2012; Tsai et al., 2016; Vidal-suñé & López-Panisello, 2013).

It was proposed in hypothesis 3 that networking increases the entrepreneurial propensity. It further divided into two sub-hypotheses: knowing existing entrepreneurs and business angel. The marginal effect for both these variables are also positive and significant (p < .01) with regard to the regression supporting this hypothesis. According to the result, the odds ratio for knowing other entrepreneurs is 1.499 which indicates that the networking with the existing entrepreneur increases the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur or entrepreneurial intention almost 1.5 times, while the odds ratio for being a business angel is 2.799 which indicates that being a business angel increases the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur or entrepreneurial intention by almost three times. These results also confirm the previous findings in the entrepreneurship and IC literature (Ahmad et al., 2014; Bux & Honglin, 2016; Fernández et al., 2009; Honjo, 2015; Liñán et al., 2011; Mancilla & Amoros, 2015; Matricano, 2016; Pathak & Laplume, 2015; Puriwat & Tripopsakul, 2015; Ramos-rodríguez et al., 2012).

In hypothesis 4, it was proposed that education positively affects the entrepreneurial intentions. The marginal effect for this variable is positive and significant (p < .01) with regard to the regression confirming the hypothesis. The odds ratio for this variable is 1 which means that as the level of education increases, the entrepreneurial intentions also increase. This finding is also in congruence with previous research examining the influence of education on entrepreneurial intention (Fernández et al., 2009; Liñán et al., 2011; Wennberg et al., 2013).

Implications of the study

As the knowledge and skills have a positive and significant impact on the entrepreneurial intentions, which shows those who have the required knowledge, expertise, and skills are more likely to become entrepreneurs. Therefore, the government is required to reframe its policies and start new programs for the development of skills and knowledge.

We also suggest that the government should establish more institutes for entrepreneurial training. In India, at this point in time, only a few institutes are providing knowledge, skills, and training for entrepreneurship, e.g., NIESBUD, IIE, EDI. More importantly, the main focus of the training institutes should be on the practical aspect rather than theoretical education. Because in this research, we also found that education negatively affects entrepreneurial activity.

Our another interesting finding germane to opportunity identification and entrepreneurial intention, which shows those who have the abilities to recognize an opportunity in starting the business are more likely to start their own business than rest of the masses. Policy makers are required to be more focused on developing the ability to recognize opportunities.

The government has to make people more aware about its promotional policies and programs for new start-ups, e.g., promotional policies for the export sector, concept of Make in India, and other sectors in which some kind of subsidies are being provided by the government.

The third component is networking which has two sub-classifications: knowing other entrepreneurs and being a business angel, which have also been found significantly influencing the entrepreneurial intentions in a positive manner. This also provides a road map for the policy makers to foster the entrepreneurial activity. As the result shows, those people who have contact with the existing entrepreneurs and financing or having financed another business as a business angel are more likely to start their own ventures. Therefore, we suggest policy makers should facilitate the interactions and discussions between the existing entrepreneurs and intentional entrepreneurs. So, the existing entrepreneurs can share their own experiences as well as profitable business ideas with the potential entrepreneurs, while the queries and problems of potential entrepreneurs would also be resolved in the light of the experience of existing entrepreneurs. This would also be helpful in mobilizing resources, reduces ambiguity and uncertainties and shows that taking on the entrepreneur role is plausible. Even the finance can be provided directly to the intentional entrepreneurs from existing entrepreneurs.

The government is being supposed to provide a platform or to develop some entrepreneurial forms for the interaction of existing entrepreneurs and intentional entrepreneurs. The associations or networks which have been formed by the entrepreneurs themselves are also working for the upliftment of start-ups, e.g., Association of Muslim Entrepreneurs in Gujarat. A few organizations are not capable enough to cater to the demand in the whole country.

The education also has a positive and significant impact on the entrepreneurial intentions which clearly indicates that the government needs to educate people regarding entrepreneurship. The best level of inculcating the entrepreneurship through education is at the undergraduate level.

Limitations

Like other studies, this study also consists of some research constraints. First one is related to the data provided by GEM consortium; the items related to intellectual capital are few in number. The second constraint is related to the nature of data, as the data was collected on single-item measures. It prevents us more accurate statistical techniques such as structural equation modeling that may show mutual interaction among the variables. The third aspect is that the model is based on Western countries and the Indians may not fully share the same frame of reference as their Western counterparts. The last constraint is that the respondents that formed entrepreneurial intention would remain stable over time.

Conclusion

Though intellectual capital research is in its infancy stage (Andrikopoulos, 2010), it is a promising field for researchers (Forte et al., 2017). This is particularly true in developing countries like India, in which very few studies have been undertaken to understand how it affects the venture creation phenomenon.

This study has suggested that the older age and educated people are less likely to become entrepreneurs. The intellectual capital is positively significant with the entrepreneurial intentions. Policy makers should design policies to develop human capital and structural capital and facilitate interaction between existing and potential entrepreneurs so that new venture creation can be fostered. Future researchers should include more aspects of the intellectual capital that will yield better understanding about the relationship between intellectual capital and new venture creations. The data used for this study restrict advanced statistical analysis.

Abbreviations

AME: 

Association of Muslim Entrepreneurs

APS: 

Adult Population Survey

CWEI: 

Consortium for Women Entrepreneurship of India

EDII: 

Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India

EI: 

Entrepreneurial intentions

GEM: 

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

IC: 

Intellectual capital

IIE: 

Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship

NIESBUD: 

National Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development

Declarations

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Professor Mohd Mohsin Khan (AMU), Professor Imran Saleem (AMU), and Dr. Amit Kumar Dwivedi (EDII) for their help and support.

Funding

Not applicable as no funding has been received for the research.

Availability of data and materials

The data had been extracted from the GEM, which is generated through a large international survey of general Adult Population Survey (APS). This data set relies upon the interviews of 3360 respondents from India. The data had been gathered accordingly to the collection procedure of GEM which had been discussed by (Reynolds et al., 2005).

Authors’ contributions

All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Both Khan, A.M., and Arafat, M.Y., have contributed the major part while Raushan, M.A., Saleem, I., Khan, N.A., & Khan, M.M. have contributed comparatively lesser.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Commerce, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
(2)
Department of Business Administration, Khowaja Moinuddin Chishti Urdu Arbi-Farsi University, Lucknow, India

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Desai, Æ. S., & Klapper, Æ. L. F. (2008). What does ‘“ entrepreneurship ”’ data really show ?, (September), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9137-7
  2. Agostini, L., Nosella, A., & Filippini, R. (2017). Does intellectual capital allow improving innovation performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2), 400–418 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-05-2016-0056.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmad, S. Z., Xavier, S. R., & Abu Bakar, A. R. (2014). Examining entrepreneurial intention through cognitive approach using Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(3), 449–464.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Musalli, M. A., & Ismail, K. N. I. (2012). Intellectual capital performance and board characteristics of GCC banks. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2, 219–226.Google Scholar
  6. Alvarez, S., & Barney, J. (2008). Opportunities, organizations, and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 171–173.Google Scholar
  7. Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815–834.Google Scholar
  8. Andrikopoulos, A. (2010). Accounting for intellectual capital: on the elusive path from theory to practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 17(4), 180–187.Google Scholar
  9. Arafat, M. Y., & Saleem, I. (2017). Examining start-up intention of Indians through cognitive approach: a study using GEM data. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-017-0073-3
  10. Arafat, M. Y., Saleem, I., Dviwedi, A. K., & Khan, A. (2018). Determinants of agricultural entrepreneurship: a GEM data based study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.Google Scholar
  11. Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233–247.Google Scholar
  12. Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 167–191 https://doi.org/10.1080/1366271042000265366.Google Scholar
  13. Baron, R. (2004). The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basis why question. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 221–239.Google Scholar
  14. Becker, G. (1964). HumanCapital. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.Google Scholar
  16. Blanchflower, D. (2004). Self-employment: more may not be better (NBER Working Paper No. 10286).Google Scholar
  17. Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76.Google Scholar
  18. Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organisational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital framing and advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, 18(5/6/7/8), 433–463.Google Scholar
  19. Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41–60.Google Scholar
  20. Burge, W. D. (2017). The relationship between the human and social capital, (May).Google Scholar
  21. Bux, S. R., & Honglin, Y. (2016). Examining entrepreneurial intention through a cognitive approach in China by using GEM data. Science International, 28(2), 1681–1687.Google Scholar
  22. Chen, M., Cheng, S., & Hwang, Y. (2005). An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital and firms’ market value and financial performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 159–176 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930510592771.Google Scholar
  23. Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2004). Measuring capital and technology: an expanded framework, 2004-65. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(301), 331.Google Scholar
  25. Dženopoljac, V., Janoševic, S., & Bontis, N. (2016). Intellectual capital and financial performance in the Serbian ICT industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 373–396 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2015-0068.Google Scholar
  26. Edvinsson, L., & Sullivan, P. H. (1996). Developing a model for managing intellectual capital. European Management Journal,14(4), 356–364.Google Scholar
  27. El-Bannany, M. (2008). A study of determinants of intellectual capital performance in banks: the UK case. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(3), 487–498.Google Scholar
  28. Fernández, J., Liñán, F., & Santos, F. J. (2009). Cognitive aspects of potential entrepreneurs in Southern and Northern Europe: an analysis using GEM-data. Revista De Economia Mundial, 23, 151–178.Google Scholar
  29. Firer, S., & Mitchell Williams, S. (2003). Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(3), 348–360 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310487806.Google Scholar
  30. Forte, W., Tucker, J., Matonti, G., & Nicolò, G. (2017). Measuring the intellectual capital of Italian listed companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(4), 710–732 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2016-0083.Google Scholar
  31. Galkina, T. (2013). Entrepreneurial networking: intended and unintended processes. Vaasa.Google Scholar
  32. Greve, A. (1995). Networks and entrepreneurship. An analysis of social relations, occupational background, and the use of contacts during the establishment process. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  33. Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241–251 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930010350800.Google Scholar
  34. Guzmán-Alfonso, C., & Guzmán-Cuevas, J. (2012). Entrepreneurial intention models as applied to Latin America. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(5), 721–735 https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811211254608.Google Scholar
  35. Hayton, J. C. (2005). Competing in the new economy : the effect of intellectual capital on corporate entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures, 137–155.Google Scholar
  36. Honjo, Y. (2015). Japan and the World Economy Why are entrepreneurship levels so low in Japan? Japan & The World Economy, 36, 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2015.08.002
  37. Hormiga, E., Batista-Canino, R., & Sánchez-Medina, A. (2011). The role of intellectual capital in the success of new ventures. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 71–92.Google Scholar
  38. Johannisson, B. (1986). Network strategies: management technology for entrepreneurship and change. International Small Business Journal, 5(1), 19–30.Google Scholar
  39. Johannisson, B. (1988). Business formation: a network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3–4), 83–99.Google Scholar
  40. Kamath, G. B. (2017). An investigation into intellectual capital efficiency and export performance of firms in India. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 47–75.Google Scholar
  41. Khan, A. M., Arafat, M. Y., & Raushan, M. A. (2019). Analyzing the entrepreneurial intentions through intellectual capital: evidences from India. International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise. Google Scholar
  42. Khan, A. M., Arafat, M. Y., Raushan, M. A., Khan, M. S., Dwivedi, A. K., Khan, M. M., & Saleem, I. (2019). Role of intellectual capital in augmenting the start-up intentions of Indians – an analysis using GEM data. Journal of Global Entrepreneuship Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0146-6
  43. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Krueger, N., Jr Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 411–432.Google Scholar
  45. Larson, A., & Starr, J. . (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–16.Google Scholar
  46. Leazar, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, 23(4), 649–680.Google Scholar
  47. Lee, S., & Wong, P. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: a career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
  48. Lev, B., Cañibano, L., & Marr, B. (2005). An accounting perspective on intellectual capital. In B. Marr (Ed.), Perspectives on intellectual capital (pp. 42–55). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  49. Liang, C. ., Huang, T. ., & Lin, W. . (2011). Does ownership structure affect firm value? Intellectual capital across industries perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 552–570.Google Scholar
  50. Liñán, F., Santos, F. J., & Fernández, J. (2011). The influence of perceptions on potential entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 373–390 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-011-0199-7.Google Scholar
  51. Link, A., & Ruhm, C. (2009). Public knowledge, private knowledge: the intellectual capital of entrepreneurs (No. M14,O31). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  52. Lowendahl, B. (2005). Strategic management of professional service firms. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  53. Maditinos, D., Mandilas, A. A., Gstraunthaler, T., & Alonso, A. P. (2009). Does intellectual capital affect corporate performance? New Perspectives on Sustainability, 16–22.Google Scholar
  54. Mancilla, C., & Amoros, J. E. (2015). Entrepreneurship in regions : differentiated impacts of the socio cultural and gender types. Academia Revista Latinoamerica de Administracion, 28(1), 45–76 https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-04-2013-0031.Google Scholar
  55. Mancuso, J. (1975). The entrepreneur’s quiz. In C. Baumack & J. R. Mancuso (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and venture management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Marr, B., Schiuma, G., & Neely, A. (2004). The dynamics of value creation: mapping your intellectual performance drivers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 312–325 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930410533722.Google Scholar
  57. Martina, M., & Ahsan, M. (2013). Beyond Cost: The Role of Intellectual Capital in Offshoring and Innovation in Young Firms. ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE, 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00477.x
  58. Matricano, D. (2016). The impact of intellectual capital on start-up expectations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(4), 654–674 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2016-0040.Google Scholar
  59. Maula, M., Autio, E., & Arenius, P. (2005). What drives micro-angel investments? Small Business Economics. Small Business Economics, 25(5), 459–475.Google Scholar
  60. McMullen, J., & Shepherd, D. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.Google Scholar
  61. Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Murphy, K., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1991). The allocation of talent: implications for growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 503–530.Google Scholar
  63. Nishimura, J. S., & Tristan, O. M. (2011). Using the theory of planned behavior to predict nascent entrepreneurship. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 46, 55–71.Google Scholar
  64. Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2013). Socio-cultural factors and female entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(March), 183–197 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0251-x.Google Scholar
  65. Pathak, S., & Laplume, E. X.-O. A. O. (2015). Entrepreneurship in transition economies: the role of corruption and individual attributes. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 1–30.Google Scholar
  66. Peña, I. (2002). Intellectual capital and business start‐up success. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(2), 180–198 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210424761.Google Scholar
  67. Pulic, A. (2000). VAICTM – an accounting tool for IC management. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(5/6/7/8).Google Scholar
  68. Puriwat, W., & Tripopsakul, S. (2015). The comparative study of attitudes toward entrepreneurial intention between ASEAN and Europe : an analysis. IJABER, 13(6), 4485–4494.Google Scholar
  69. Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R., José-Aurelio, M.-G., José-Daniel, L.-G., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2010). What you know or who you know? The role of intellectual and social capital in opportunity recognition. International Small Business Journal, 28(6), 566–582 https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610369753.Google Scholar
  70. Ramos-rodríguez, A. R., Medina-garrido, J. A., & Ruiz-navarro, J. (2012). Determinants of hotels and restaurants entrepreneurship: a study using GEM data. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 579–587 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.08.003.Google Scholar
  71. Raushan, M. A., & Khan, A. M. (2018). Intellectual capital and financial performance: evidences from Indian business process outsourcing industry. In B. Kamaiah, C. S. Shylajan, S. V. Seshaiah, M. Aruna, & S. Mukherjee (Eds.), Current issues in economics and finance (1st ed., pp. 97–112). Singapore: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5810-3.Google Scholar
  72. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., & Servais, I. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231.Google Scholar
  73. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: lessons from MIT and beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Roos, G., & Roos, J. (1997). Measuring your company’s intellectual performance. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 413–426.Google Scholar
  75. Santiago-Roman, J. (2013). Entrepreneurism in Puerto Rico: job creation and entrepreneurial development. Northcentral University.Google Scholar
  76. Sarasvathy, S. ., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. ., & Venkataraman, S. (2005). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: an interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 141–160). New York: Springer, NY.Google Scholar
  77. Schiavone, F., Meles, A., Verdoliva, V., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Does location in a science park really matter for firms’ intellectual capital performance? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 497–515 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2014-0082.Google Scholar
  78. Schultz, T. (1959). Investment in man: an economist’s view. The Social Service Review, 33(2), 69–75.Google Scholar
  79. Seng, D., Kumarasinghe, S., & Pandey, R. (2018). Intellectual capital disclosure in private sector listed companies in India. Knowledge and Process Management, 25(1), 41–53 https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1560.Google Scholar
  80. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.Google Scholar
  81. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  82. Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257–279.Google Scholar
  83. Shaver, K., & Scott, L. (1991). Person, process, and choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23–46.Google Scholar
  84. Smith, D., & Lohrke, F. (2008). Entrepreneurial network development: trusting in the process. Journal of Business Research, 61(4), 315–322.Google Scholar
  85. Sonnier, B. M., Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (2009). An examination of the impact of firm size and age on managerial disclosure of intellectual capital by high-tech companies. Journal of Business Strategies, 26(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
  86. Starr, J., & Macmillan, I. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  87. Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations. New York: NY:Doubleday.Google Scholar
  88. Sveiby, K. (1997). The intangible assets monitor. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 2(1), 73–97.Google Scholar
  89. Szivas, E. (2001). Entrance into tourism entrepreneurship: a UK case study. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(2), 163–172.Google Scholar
  90. Tsai, K.-H., Chang, H.-C., & Peng, C.-Y. (2016). Refining the linkage between perceived capability and entrepreneurial intention: roles of perceived opportunity, fear of failure, and gender. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0383-x.
  91. Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: a mindset for building brands into strategic resources. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 117–133.Google Scholar
  92. Veciana, J. M. (2007). Entrepreneurship as a scientific research programme. In Entrepreneurship (pp. 23–71). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  93. Vidal-suñé, A., & López-Panisello, M.-B. (2013). Institutional and economic determinants of the perception of opportunities and entrepreneurial intention. Investigaciones Regionales, 26(june), 75–96.Google Scholar
  94. Wennberg, K., Pathak, S., & Autio, E. (2013). How culture moulds the effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.862975
  95. Wong, H., & Merrilles, B. (2008). The performance benefits of being brand-orientated. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(6), 372–383.Google Scholar
  96. Wu, A. (2005). The integration between Balanced Scorecard and intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 267–284 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930510592843.Google Scholar
  97. Ya-Hui, L. (2013). The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance-knowledge management as moderator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(3), 937–964.Google Scholar
  98. Yi, A., & Davey, H. (2010). Intellectual capital disclosure in Chinese (mainland) companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(3), 326–347 https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011064572.Google Scholar
  99. Yitmen, I. (2011). Intellectual capital: a competitive asset for driving innovation in engineering design firms. Engineering Management Journal, 23(2), 3–19.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement