Top-Rated Free Essay

What Is Organizational Capital

Good Essays
Kindley, M. (2001) What is Organizational Capital? – Interview to Erik Brynjolfsson – CIO Insight

The recent bursting of the internet bubble, together with its unsustainable and sometimes bizarre business models, has resurrected the debate on the degree to which IT investments contribute to productivity growth. While economist Erik Brynjolfsson is a firm believer in the long-term contribution of technology to productivity growth, he also believes the answer isn't as easy as buying a few computers, a server and some software .
H H

Brynjolfsson, a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management and the codirector of the Center for eBusiness@MIT, is one of a new breed of economists who invoke the concept of "organizational capital" to describe a whole range of intangible assets and investments necessary to leverage IT investments into fully productive parts of a successful, even innovative, business. His in-depth studies of more than 800 of the Fortune 1,000 companies—extending back to the pre-Internet economy—have provided some of the most tangible evidence of the value of the intangible assets that make up "organizational capital." At the end of a two-hour interview with journalist Mark Kindley in his office at MIT, Brynjolfsson mused on how he would characterize organizational capital. It's not so much an economic theory or an accepted fact. Rather, he said, "It's a perspective. It lets you see things you might not otherwise see." CIO INSIGHT: What is organizational capital? BRYNJOLFSSON: I think of organizational capital as analogous to physical capital. Just as you make an investment in the bricks and mortar of a factory, you could also make an investment in a new supplychain system, inventory-management system or a new accounts-payable process. They may take hundreds or thousands of person-hours to redesign and implement; they may require consultants and special software and be very costly to put into place. But once they've been put into place, the expectation is that they will yield a stream of benefits over a period of years—not only in terms of lower costs and greater efficiencies, but also in terms of better customer responsiveness, more innovation and more transparency for management to understand how their organization is working. An economic definition of capital is something you make an investment in and then get a stream of benefits back from over time. Clearly, a factory fits that profile. I have been arguing that many business processes are also investments in economic terms and, therefore, just as we talk about "physical capital," we should also be thinking in terms of "organizational capital." Firms that have made such investments have an asset others don't have. It's just like having a factory your competitor doesn't have. Is organizational capital directly linked to technology? No. There is organizational capital that is not associated with technology. What our studies found, however, is that there is a disproportionately large amount of organizational capital associated with technology investments. In fact, we found that among the companies we studied, there were on average $10 of organizational capital associated with every $1 of technology capital. What's included in that? All of the direct costs, such as hiring consultants, the time spent by internal and external software developers to rewrite the code and adapt the code to work for the organization, the training of the personnel at all levels, whether it be the secretaries or the line workers or the sales people or the middle managers, all the way up. Then there's the management time in thinking about which processes need to change and how. I call them costs, but you could also think of them as investments. You are spending this money with the expectation of getting some return. Is this a new measure of corporate worth? Yes. Organizational assets are a subset of intangible assets. Intangible assets include a lot of things, like patents and goodwill, and organizational capital is an important subset of that. Our official statistics have been ignoring them because they are hard to measure. If you look at the gross domestic product, they

don't show up anywhere. Most companies—with the exception of a few like Merck & Co.—don't do a real accounting of their intangible assets. The economy, however, is becoming more and more dependent on those kinds of assets, so every year we ignore them we are getting a more and more misleading understanding of where the value is in the economy. My research suggests that U.S. firms have made very large investments in organizational capital over the past decade or so; and these large investments mean that the "true" capital stock of these firms, including both conventional capital and organizational capital, is much larger than had been thought. As a result, the productive capacity of firms is higher, and productivity growth is likely to grow as well as more and more of this organizational capital is put into use. Bottom line: I think the productivity surge we've seen in the past five years or so is largely sustainable. A portion of it was due to cyclical effects, but most of the increase in productivity growth in the 1990s is likely to be long-lasting. Organizational capital recognizes many more benefits than are typically taken into account when IT investments are evaluated. That sounds like a good thing for IT professionals. Absolutely. There are two parts of output that have been mismeasured or unmeasured in a lot of traditional studies, and in the way a lot of managers think about things. One is the intangible unmeasured components of customer value, and the other is the intangible organizational assets. Let me take each of them in turn. We found that computers and computer investments were correlated with increases in customer service, product variety, greater speed and timeliness in delivery and quality improvements as well as cost savings. But the official productivity statistics are only really good at measuring the cost savings and are so-so at measuring the quality improvements. The other benefits—product variety, customer service and timeliness—are entirely missing. The firms that invested most in IT had the greatest changes in these unmeasured aspects of output, but because the value of these benefits is often unmeasured, the productivity value of IT for those firms is often substantially underestimated. The other kind of mismeasurement we found is the value of intangible organizational assets. We have just recently completed a paper on this, and we were surprised at how large the numbers turn out to be. The U.S. economy has created somewhere in excess of $1.3 trillion of new organizational assets over the past decade that are closely associated with IT. These assets are comparable in economic impact to $1.3 trillion worth of new factories or new equipment in those factories. Unfortunately, there is often a focus on the technology—on hardware costs—when our research indicates that those costs are just the tip of a much larger iceberg of necessary investments. Business leaders and CIOs need to understand that so they can plan accordingly and make sure they don't give short shrift to these investments. Otherwise they risk budgeting only 10 percent of the real cost? Right. And in fairness, not all of that is in the CIO's budget. It means you have to get your marketing people and your human resources people and your operations people all on board and make sure they are all making the necessary investments and changes to get the leverage from the technology investments. When IT people go to their CEOs and say, "The business side needs to make some changes, spend some money on training, spend some money on the business process we designed," our study provides evidence that that is critically important. Trying to skimp on those other parts of the budget will be counterproductive. Too often, people roll out expensive technology investments, but if the organizational investments are not made, they end up falling well short of their goals—or what they see happening in other firms. Our data show that the firms that make changes on all these dimensions have higher productivity and higher market value than those that don't.
H H

In your view, IT investments should be associated with organizational change, and once those changes are made, they constitute a measurable intangible asset, which you call organizational capital.

Yes. But not all organizational change is good, and it also seems that organizational change could make existing organizational capital obsolete. How would that work? Let me give you an example. I was working with a manufacturing organization that had its roots in Henry Ford's era of mass production and standardized products. They wanted to move toward what we call modern manufacturing, which involves much lower levels of inventory, flexible machinery, greater product variety, cross-training and more diverse skills. As they made that transition, they were smart enough to understand that it wasn't enough just to change the technology. They also made another list of changes they needed, such as incentive systems, training, product line and inventory systems. I figured they were going to have a very nice, successful transition. I was very wrong. It was a horrendously difficult transition. We worked with them to try to understand what was going on. It had to do with the fact that when you mixed and matched the old system with the new system, you got a terribly dysfunctional mongrel. They had made some changes in their technology, but they hadn't updated their inventory system quite at the right time. Workers were still mentally thinking in the old system. I remember interviewing one of the workers. This guy was saying how much he wanted this change to be successful, and then he told me that the key to productivity is to keep the machinery running all the time. He had exactly the right attitude but the wrong approach. Keeping the machinery running all the time was the old way. The harder he worked at trying to use his old rules of thumb, the more dysfunctional he was for the new system. There were literally dozens of examples like that—leftover bits of the old system, the old culture, the old business processes, the old rules of thumb—gumming up the new system. Initially there was a bunch of finger pointing, but ultimately there is a happy ending to the story. What they did was go to a greenfield site, a new location, to make a clean break from the old system. It worked very well and they were super-productive; so productive, in fact, that they painted the windows of the factories black so the competitors couldn't peek in and see what they were doing. What had been organizational capital in the old system had become an organizational liability in the new system. Yes. Their old organizational capital became obsolete, even counterproductive. It was worth a negative number. So organizational capital is really a very dynamic commodity. It is. It's more dynamic than physical capital. That's one of the reasons we haven't had very good measures of it. And it's a good excuse for ignoring it. But, unfortunately, the evidence suggests that if you are ignoring it, you are ignoring nine-tenths of the relevant capital. Of course, the value of a factory can change, too. At some point the factories that made buggy whips were not so valuable anymore. So it's not an entirely different argument from what you have for physical capital. It's just more difficult to measure. Have you also found cases where a company's existing organizational capital survived significant organizational and technological change? Yes. Merrill Lynch is a good example of that. We were trying to help them transition from a traditional brokerage to an online brokerage model. We went through and mapped all the principles of the traditional brokerage as well as the online brokerage. At the time, the online brokerage model was synonymous with the E*Trade, Charles Schwab model: You didn't have much research, and you didn't have a personal broker. It was kind of a thin thing. Merrill didn't see how that fit with their knowledge base and all the assets of the firm. They had about 17,000 financial consultants; what were they going to do with them? The conventional wisdom a couple of years ago was, "Too bad. You're a dinosaur, and you're going to have to throw all that away." Their stock market valuation plummeted. Some analysis that we did with a tool we call the Matrix of Change, however, indicated that there was actually another way to do business that really played much more to Merrill's strengths. Merrill Lynch now calls it "Unlimited Advantage." It uses the Internet, but it also uses their analysts. Instead of having to

choose between their old high fees versus the low fees—where they couldn't make money on trades— they got rid of fees on trades altogether. Now, for that service, they charge a single annual fee as a percentage of assets, a kind of wrap account. Once you pay that annual fee, you have no costs for trading. This has had a lot of other benefits. Ultimately, by bundling together a whole set of services that their competitors don't offer, they are in a stronger position than they ever were. Now their market value is about double that of Schwab's. So organizational capital doesn't necessarily have to mean "new economy" or "new technology." That's one of the most important lessons we took from this and from some of our other studies. If anything, I have a heightened appreciation for the organizational capital that some of these traditional firms have built up over many, many years. It may have taken 50 years to build up a set of business processes that are incredibly valuable, and for you to simply throw them away and say, "Okay, we are starting fresh with the Internet," would be a gross miscalculation and a real waste. Rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Exactly. I think the number-one reason why so many change efforts fail is because people think too narrowly about just one element of the new system. They see Dell Computer doing something neat with their supply chain or Cisco Systems doing something neat with their self-service customers or Schwab doing something interesting with their compensation system, and they say, "That's great. Let's implement it in our organization." Almost inevitably the results are disappointing and people don't understand why. People feel it worked at this other organization; why doesn't it work at our organization? The answer, typically, is that the practice they analyzed and are trying to implement is only one piece of a larger system of practices. Whether it is a technology or a human resource practice or a factory principle, you have to think of it in the context of a larger system change. If you don't do that, you are really setting yourself up for failure. Are you, or were you, an advocate of the "new economy"? I don't think I've ever used those words in any of my writing or in my talks. I don't think there is a new economy in the sense that the old rules don't apply. In my MBA courses it was sometimes frustrating at the height of the Internet boom to be reminding people of the fundamentals of business. The students would say,"'No, no, it's a whole new world." Now there is a danger of them going too far in the opposite direction and saying, "Well, I guess the whole thing was just a mirage." That would be an equally inaccurate image. What I do believe is that computers and communications and associated information technologies have had a vastly disproportionate effect on the economy compared with the actual size of the spending on computers. It is still a fairly small part of the economy, but it has a very big impact, in part because of the way it has reshaped organizations. I expect and am quite confident that the influence of those technologies on the economy is going to grow in the next five or 10 years. Mark Kindley, a freelance journalist with almost 30 years of experience covering business and technology, is a former editor of VARBusiness magazine. Comments on this story can be sent to editors@ cioinsight.com

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    * Organizational capital: strategy supportive intangible assets such as leadership, alignment of goals, and teamwork…

    • 5659 Words
    • 23 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Except for new systems, there are some changes in management and organization in order to return revenue and profit growth at the Global Wealth Management Group. This article states that the Chief Executive John Mack brought in a new boss for the Global Wealth Management Group, this change in the senior level of employees follow the theory which is expressed by Kenneth c. (2006) as people is one of the key elements of an organization. Additionally as a number of productive brokers left the company, the firm is trying to fix the problem by addressing the issue of a “one-firm culture”, so the combination of these two factors in the principle “the key elements of an organization are its people, structure, business processes, politics and culture” (Kenneth c., 2006) was carried out well. Last but not least, the considerable change taking place in the Global Wealth Management Group was the enormous investment in technology to help the brokers do their works efficiently and to help their financial advisors better serve their clients and help their clients better manage relationship with them. Actually, “complementary assets are those assets required to derive value from a primary investment” ( Teece, 1988) “‘Recent research on business information technology investment indicates that firms that support their technology investments with investments in complementary assets, such as new business models, new business processes, management behavior, organizational culture, or training, receive superior returns, whereas those firms failing to make these complementary investments receive less or no returns on their information technology investments(Brynjolfsson, 2003; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000; Davern and Kauffman, 2000; Laudon,1974).’These investments in organization and management are also known as organizational and management capital” (Kenneth c., 2006).So we can see that the explanation of organizational and management capital show the reason why the leader of the…

    • 433 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Chatzkel, Jay L. Knowledge Capital: How Knowledge-Based Enterprises Really Get Built; Oxford University Press, 2003…

    • 2024 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nt1330 Unit 7

    • 481 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The complementary social, managerial and organizational assets required to optimize returns from technology investment are that manager need to consider the broader organization and management of information system to understand current problem as well as to drive above average returns.…

    • 481 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The case examines the link between the information technology sector and economic growth in the United States. In the early 1980s, U.S. information technology companies shifted production of certain commodity-like components to low cost producers, and focused on producing only the highest value-added components. Questions arose as to whether the trend was bad for the U.S. economy.…

    • 355 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    For companies to continue to be successful “everyone in a company…needs to know about IT” and the fact that IT “is the backbone of most, if not all, organizational…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Prescott, Edward C , and Michael Visscher. 1980. "Organizational Capital," 88 Journal of Political Economy 466.…

    • 6627 Words
    • 27 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    tury back physical, tangible assets created wealth; today, it’s intangible assets that are creating wealth. It’s a concept that packs a lot of punch but has no form as such. It questions capitalism for its emphasis on buying assets like plant and machinery, and hiring executives and workers to run those to make money in the process. Managing Intangibles seems to be a smart idea. But to bet on it, one has to create a whole new organization. Management control systems are built around the framework of strategy, structure and systems. Typically, the top management is considered as the resource allocator and is the grand strategist, while the junior management is considered as implementors and middle management as administrators of the strategy. Using intangible assets means that you move from this structure to the purpose, process and people structure. Here the role of the top management is only to create an overarching purpose and allow people the freedom to deliver. Companies which are hot on intangible assets look out for a completely different set of signals in business than those which are not. Researches have shown that customer loyalty and employee commitment are two of the most important intangible assets. As such a company that believes in intangible assets wouldn’t so much look for market share figures as it would for customer satisfaction figures. As the concept of intangible assets gathers…

    • 2151 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Wilson, D.D. (1995) 'IT Investment and its Productivity Effects: An Organisational Sociologist 's Perspective on Directions for Future Research ' in The Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 3, pp. 235-251.…

    • 8333 Words
    • 34 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    During the 1980s, the relationship between information technology (IT) and productivity became a source of debate: the astonishing improvements in computers’ underlying capabilities proved almost impossible to assess in terms of their effect on productivity. Fueled in part by the emergence of empirical research on IT productivity that generally did not identify significant productivity improvements, the perception that IT failed to live up to its promise prevailed. Recent research is more encouraging, as new data are identified and more sophisticated methodologies are applied. Several researchers document IT’s positive effect on productivity performance. Additionally, others approach IT’s contribution from different perspectives, examining its effect on intermediate measures, on consumer surplus, and on economic growth. Consequently, our presumption of a “productivity paradox” has diminished considerably. However, a careful review indicates that unequivocal evidence still remains elusive, with new questions emerging even as old puzzles fade. This survey categorizes relevant studies into four groups, identifies remaining productivity puzzles, and reviews four possible explanations for them:…

    • 21034 Words
    • 85 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Oulton, N. and Srinivasan, S. (2005). 'Productivity Growth and the Role of ICT in the United Kingdom: an Industry View, 1970-2000 ', CEP Discussion Paper No. 681, London.…

    • 3099 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    Corporate entrepreneurial advantages (ventures) can be created relying on tangible (e.g. physical, financial and labor resources) and intangible resources (e.g. human, social and intellectual capital). Intangible resources are becoming ever more salient, especially in highly innovative and emerging industries. Whereas human capital is concerned with the capabilities, knowledge, skills and experience of employees, intellectual capital refers to collectively embodied, organizational knowledge and social capital is described as an asset incorporated in social networks. However, the role of intangible resources has been under investigated in corporate entrepreneurship and innovation research. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation research of the Research Centre for Organization Studies group aims at bridging this gap by means of several research projects. One project focuses on the role of inter-organizational collaboration in the context of innovation. A second project develops a behavioral model of corporate entrepreneurship, incorporating tangible as well as intangible resources that can be deployed to create corporate entrepreneurial advantages.…

    • 879 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    References: Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17 (1): 99-120. Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (2000): The dominant logic: retrospective and extension, Strategic Management Journal, 16 (1), 5-14. Boekestein, B. (2006). The relation of intellectual capital and intangible assets of pharmaceutical companies, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7 (2): 241-253. Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, 18: 433-462. Bontis N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3:41-60. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M. & Hulland, J. (2002): Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows, Journal of Management Studies, 39 (4), 437-469. Bromiley, P. (2009). A prospect theory model of resource allocation. Decision Analysis, 6 (3): 124-138. Chen, M., Cheng, S. & Hwang, Y. (2005). An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital, and firm’s market value and financial performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6 (2): 159-176. Davis, J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M. & Bingham, C.B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods, Academy of Management Review, 32: 480-499. Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage, Management Science, 35 (12), 1504-1511. Donaldson, G. & Lorsch, J. (1983): Decision Making at the Top, Basic Books, New York. Firer, S. & Williams, S. M. (2003). Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4 (3): 348-360. Forrester, J. W. (1961): Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gary, M. S., Wood, R. E. (2011). Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity, Strategic Management Journal, 32: 569-594.…

    • 7029 Words
    • 29 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    I would like to acknowledge the following Sources which were consulted: Ken Blanchard Companies. 2001. Situational Leadership II The Article Scholtes, Joiner and Streibel. 2003. The Team Handbook, Third Edition, Oriel Incorporated Steward, TA. 1997. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations. New York: Doubleday Stoner, Carew, Parisi-Carew and Kandarian. 2000. High Performing Organisations SCORE. Ken Blanchard Companies Trist, E. 1981. The Evolution of Socio-technical Systems. Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre…

    • 1813 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    References: A Review of IT and Productivity: A Review of the Literature – Erik Brynjolfsson and Shinkyu Yang…

    • 511 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays