You are on page 1of 13

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at


Intellectual capital practices and performance in Russian enterprises

George Tovstiga
Henley Management College, School of Growth, Innovation & Enterprise, Henley-on-Thames, UK, and

IC practices in Russian enterprises 695

Ekaterina Tulugurova
International Graduate School of Management, St Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St Petersburg, Russia
Purpose This paper seeks to present and discuss research that investigates the impact of intellectual capital practices on enterprise performance in small innovative enterprises (SIEs) in the St Petersburg, Russia region. Design/methodology/approach Research eldwork uses a survey questionnaire focusing on technology-intensive SIEs in the St Petersburg region, supported by a select number of follow-up interviews. The research analysis is based on quantitative statistical evaluation of the research data. Findings Intellectual capital, particularly structural and human capital, is perceived by Russian managers of SIEs to be a primary determinant of enterprise performance, thereby substantiating the importance of the resource-based view for enterprise performance even in the transitional economy of Russia. Research limitations/implications The research reported in this paper is limited by the relatively small sample size of rms surveyed; the quantitative research is based on perceptions of managers. Practical implications The research points to some key dimensions of intellectual capital-related practices that are particularly important for enterprise performance. Originality/value The research reported in this paper brings together a unique combination of research related to the resource-based view of the rm in the setting of small innovative enterprises in a transitional economy environment. Keywords Intellectual capital, Organizational performance, Russia Paper type Research paper

Introduction Increasingly, management scholars and practitioners are viewing intellectual capital as a key determinant of business performance in enterprises. However, relatively little is known about how intellectual capital really affects a rms performance. Given the highly complex and ambiguous nature of intellectual capital, this is hardly surprising. Even less is known about the impact and implications of intellectual capital for small innovative enterprise (SIE) performance in transitional economies. In this paper, the authors present the ndings of empirical research that examines the impact of
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by their colleague, Carola Hillenbrand, in carrying out the statistical analyses.

Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol. 8 No. 4, 2007 pp. 695-707 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1469-1930 DOI 10.1108/14691930710830846

JIC 8,4


intellectual capital on enterprise performance in small innovative enterprises (SIEs). The study examines the antecedents and consequents of effective intellectual capital exploitation against the background of some key external (socio-political, technological, and economic) factors in the characteristic transitional economy of the knowledge-intensive small innovative enterprise sector in the St Petersburg region of Russia. The key question addressed in this research is whether intellectual capital in small innovative enterprises represents an opportunity that has potential to override the threat imposed by the prevailing and typically adverse external economic, scal and legal factors facing small private enterprises in the transitional economy of Russia. This supposition formed the hypothesis. Hence, this work seeks to provide new insights in several areas. While a number of studies have looked at the impact of intellectual capital on enterprise performance per se, relatively little work to date has focused on the specic case of intellectual capital deployment in small innovative enterprises (SIEs). Very little, if any, work has focused on the impact of intellectual capital and its implications for private enterprise performance in transitional economies. In this respect, Russia represents a particularly interesting case on account of its rich scientic and intellectual legacy, even in Soviet times. The notion of the knowledge-based theory of the rm forms the conceptual basis of a framework that is developed to relate intellectual capital (human capital and structural capital) and key external factors (socio-political, economic and technological ) to enterprise performance in SIEs in the context of the Russian transitional economy. A survey instrument designed on the basis of this model was applied in eld research involving 20 SIEs in the St Petersburg region. The rst phase of the research involving the survey was followed up with in-depth semi-structured interviews with a selection of the rms that participated in the survey. The research data was subjected to exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis using standard and advanced statistical analysis based on regression, correlation analysis. In a nal step, structural equation modelling on the basis of a partial least squares technique was used to examine the validity of the hypothesis in view of the research ndings. The research ndings provide evidence suggesting that intellectual capital indeed does have a greater potential impact on enterprise performance than prevailing external factors. In as much, our hypothesis has been substantiated on the basis of this research. The premise explored in this paper is that the rms internal resource base foremost its intellectual capital and its deployment of that base, is an equally, if not more, important factor in determining the competitive performance of a small innovative enterprise. It goes beyond simply viewing the SIE, particularly in a transitional economy, as being vulnerable and dependent on external conditions for success in the market place. Rather, the basic premise of this paper is that small innovative enterprises in such environments may indeed achieve competitive despite possible detrimental factors in their external business environment. This approach is not necessarily new. There is an extensive literature that examines various enterprise-specic factors involved in creating a position of competitive advantage for the rm, and the complex interplay between the rms internal organizational factors and environmental factors. Research evidence suggests that

while environmental contexts can be very inuential, they do not necessarily outweigh a number of key internal factors that can be directly inuenced by the enterprise, while those in the rms environment generally cannot (Papadakis and Bourantas, 1998; Turgoose and Thacker, 2000; Thacker and Handscombe, 2003). For example, Sanchez and McKinley (1998) suggest that whether or not environmental regulation inhibits or promotes product innovation seems to depend at least in part on certain internal features of an organization. Thacker and Handscombe (2003) argue that people in the organization and the interaction between the organizations people inevitably play a large part in enabling or constraining the organizations innovation process, which is seen increasingly to be a key determinant of protable growth. West and Anderson (1996) emphasize the importance of the teams characteristic social process, and Burpitt and Bigoness (1997) discuss the role of team empowerment in this context. What the literature appears to be suggesting is that competitive advantage increasingly is achieved by those rms that succeed in mobilizing their intangible assets in the form of knowledge, technological skills and experience, and strategic capabilities toward creating new processes and product/service offerings. This is the fundamental notion of the resource-based view of the rm; more specically, the knowledge-based view of the rm, whereby knowledge is seen to be the rms key competitive resource. Intellectual capital in its various forms is the primary resource available to these entrepreneurial endeavors. Specically, for the research discussed in this paper, we set out to explore the following questions: (1) What is the potential impact of the small innovative enterprises internal resource base on its innovation performance and ultimately its competitive performance in the market place? (2) Specically, what is the impact of the rm intellectual capital in combination with prevailing environmental factors on SIEs ultimate position of competitiveness? (3) What is it about rms in this sector and their management of their intellectual capital that we need to understand in terms of their constraints, limitations and opportunities for growth in order to provide the most effective and efcient support? A knowledge-based view of the small innovative enterprise (SIE) The knowledge-based view of the rm is essentially an extension of the resource-based theory of the rm, which has been described exhaustively in the strategic management literature. Conner and Prahalad (2002) remind us that the knowledge-based view of the rm comprises the very essence of the resource-based view of the rm. Increasingly, the rms stock of strategically relevant knowledge is being seen to be its fundamental source of competitive advantage. In the strategic management literature, the resource-based view deals with performances differences between rms on the basis of competitive asymmetries. The knowledge-based view of the rm argues that knowledge, in the form of the rms competencies, capabilities, and relationships and not least, experience, endow it with this differentiation potential (see also Grant, 2002; Birchall and Tovstiga, 2001; Tovstiga, 1999). The enterprise uses its knowledge-based advantage to build the product/service offering features that appeal to the market. It

IC practices in Russian enterprises 697

JIC 8,4


has been pointed out that the application of the resource-based view of the rm to settings outside of the US has been only very limited; its application to small innovative rms in transitional economies has investigated by practically no one (Javenpaa and Leidner, 1998; Yu, 2001; Bruton and Rubanik, 2002). This work examines the Russian small innovative enterprise from the perspective of the knowledge-based theory of the rm. It explores the impact of the SIEs knowledge and capabilities base on its competitive position, whereby the rms knowledge and capabilities base is represented by its intellectual capital. The rms intellectual capital is assumed to consist of its human and structural capital. The study therefore begins by examining the SIEs intellectual capital and its internal manifestation and exploitation. The study then looks at the relationship between the rms intellectual capital and its external environment represented by socio-political, technological and economical factors that might have an impact on the rms competitive position. Intellectual capital and the small innovative enterprise (SIE) The conceptual framework used in this work draws on the knowledge-based view of the enterprise. Intellectual capital, unlike numerous external factors such as the enterprises socio-political or economic environment, represents a set of internal factors that the small innovative can inuence directly (Tovstiga et al., 2004). Intellectual capital, in this sense, represents a competitive lever that presents itself to the small innovative enterprise; in fact, intellectual capital is increasingly becoming the primary resource available to the enterprise in technology-intensive environments. Furthermore, the enterprise is viewed to be a dynamic repository of knowledge. Dynamic and continual conversion and recombination of the various forms of the enterprises knowledge leads to new knowledge and this contributes to the enterprises ability to differentiate itself competitively in the marketplace. Although it is very difcult to accurately measure and evaluate intellectual capital, its competitive impact of the rms intellectual capital whether linked to the rms stock of strategically relevant knowledge, innovation or strategic capabilities remains undisputed (Bontis, 1999). Stewart (1997) denes intellectual capital as the rms intellectual material its knowledge, information, intellectual property and experience base that can be put to use to create wealth. For our research, we assume that the rms intellectual capital constitutes the internal determinant of competitiveness in the SIE. It is broadly broken down into two sub-categories human capital and structural capital. Human capital embodies competence (people-embodied knowledge, capabilities and skills, and experiential knowledge), attitude (behavior, motivation, and ethical conduct) and intellectual agility (innovation, imitation and adaptation). Structural capital consists of relationships (involving strategic networks, alliances, relationships with customers and other key stakeholders), organization (databases, routines, infrastructure, processes and culture), and renewal and development (research and development, investments in organizational learning). Intellectual capital may exhibit both explicit and intangible characteristics. Of the two, the intangible form is the most challenging and difcult from a managerial perspective, but it is also the form with the greatest potential impact on competitive performance.

The external factors of the enterprise include socio-political, technological and economical dimensions. The conceptual framework is presented in terms of a causal map, as shown in Figure 1. Conceptual framework and underlying hypotheses The conceptual model and the underlying assumptions are based on the notions relating to intellectual capital and external factors described in the foregoing discussion. The internal (intellectual capital) and external factors (environmental) each constitute sub-factors in the construct. Collectively, they are assumed to have an impact enterprise performance. The conceptual framework (Figure 1) shows how these factors relate to each other. Internal factors: intellectual capital (HC, SC) HC: human capital. Three attributes of human capital embodying the competence (knowledge, skill sets, and experiential knowledge), attitude (level of motivation, behavioral patterns) and intellectual agility (innovation, creativity, exibility, adaptability) of the enterprises employees are investigated in this study. All three exhibit a high degree of tacitness. It is the combination of the three that provide the SIE with immense competitive potential. The hypothesis is that each of the three attributes individually and in combination can contribute to the successful performance of the enterprise, provided they are managed deliberately and astutely by the enterprises management. SC: structural capital relational. Three attributes of this form of intellectual capital chosen included those embodying the rms largely explicit codied knowledge bases, organizational routines and attributes (including the organizations cultural attributes), organizational and managerial mechanisms, processes and procedures, and not least,

IC practices in Russian enterprises 699

Figure 1. Conceptual framework showing internal and external factors, and enterprise performance

JIC 8,4

the rms relational networks with external players (customers, alliance partners, suppliers, regulatory institutions, agencies, etc.). The hypothesis here is also that the enterprises structural capital, if astutely managed, can provide a substantial source of competitive advantage, and therefore correlates positively with enterprise performance. External factors (EF) EF: environmental factors. Various socio-political, technological and economic factors were taken to represent the external factors that might inuence the performance of the SIE. As already pointed our previously (Tovstiga et al., 2004), external factors represent factors that cannot be inuenced directly by the small innovative enterprise, as opposed to its intellectual capital. On the basis of the discussion in the foregoing section, it is hypothesized that the impact of these factors on enterprise performance is negative, as might be expected in a transitional economy undergoing turbulent regulatory, legal and economic reform. Enterprise performance (EP) Performance measurement in Russian enterprises is (still) a highly contentious issue. Direct measures remain difcult if not impossible to capture in eld research. Hence, two dimensions of enterprise performance were selected that would allow an indirect measure of performance while not compromising the proprietary reporting practices of any of the respondents. EP1: performance outcomes. This measure provides a relative measure of business performance based on revenue growth, operations improvement and customer satisfaction; it seeks to capture an internal perspective on enterprise performance. EP2: comparative competitiveness. This measure is meant to be complementary to performance outcomes (EP1) by providing an external benchmark for comparison. Research design The survey instrument developed for the empirical eld research was designed to address the intellectual capital, external factor and enterprise performance construct described in the foregoing section of this paper. The instrument consists of a questionnaire that was originally formulated in English but was used in a translated Russian version for the eld research in St Petersburg. It consists of a total of 62 items which query the respondents perceptions with respect to various internal (intellectual capital) practices and the perceived inuence of key external (socio-political, economic and technological) factors. Two measures of enterprise performance are used, as indicated in Figure 1. A ve-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) was employed for the scales relating to intellectual capital, external factors and performance outcomes. Comparative competitiveness was measured on a ten-point scale. Research analysis and discussion of research ndings Sample description The survey was conducted in 20 small and medium-sized innovative enterprises in the St Petersburg area. The companies participating in the survey all had less than 180


employees, although they were quite diverse in their scale of operation, duration of being in the market, and area of business. All companies surveyed fell into the category of small enterprises. All were research- and knowledge-intensive enterprises in the high-tech sector, typically in the development and production of scientic-technical devices and software for manufacturing, medical and technology development applications. As was to be expected, typical small innovative enterprises in the Russian transitional economy are faced with many obstacles and do not necessarily appreciate the potential implications of cooperating with academic research. This is a very typical feature for the Russian Federation at the moment cooperation between the academic world and business is complicated at best. New tools and methods are being put into practice by the government to try to support and motivate small and medium-sized enterprises to nurture closer cooperation with institutes and universities. However, daily issues often leave little time (or desire) on the part of the small innovative enterprise to think beyond the most immediate concerns of the company. The respondents of the survey can be broadly divided into two categories: the rst category has had some international business-related experience, and therefore is open to new knowledge and opportunities to develop. The second group of enterprises is mainly involved in conducting business domestically (i.e. within the Russian Federation). This second group generally faces difculties of a local nature and is, as a rule, neither highly cooperative nor open. Another survey outcome observation concerns the age-split of the respondent group. The respondents of the survey were in positions of either being owners or heads of development or technology departments. About 80 percent of them were between the ages of 30 and 35 years, 10 percent were less than 30 years old, and another 10 percent were between the ages of 35 and 55. Owners or partners of the company represented the latter category only. General survey ndings Table I summarizes the outcome of the statistical analysis. The consistency and reliability (measured by Cronbachs alpha) are generally good, evidenced by standard deviations that lie well within the accepted range. Inspection of the mean values suggests that human capital is perceived to be the most important issue relating to the companys competitiveness. Notably, environmental factors achieve lower scores indicating a greater degree of optimism than would be expected in the context of the transitional economy of the Russian Federation. We attribute this to the fact that the companies surveyed appear overall to dwell more on the opportunities presented to them than potential barriers. Nonetheless, our research initially the survey outcomes and substantiation of these on the basis of in-depth semi-structured interviews with selected participating rms does indicate that a number of apparent inconsistencies and sources of contention do exist. These perhaps are as much an indicator of the change in the overall socio-political and economic environment of the Russian SIE. One of the sources of difculty for Russian managers relates to the measurement of competitive performance. While managers can relate relatively well to direct measures of performance such as improvements in overall cost structures or ratio of revenue per employee, they appear to have signicantly more difculty when it comes to

IC practices in Russian enterprises 701

JIC 8,4


Factors 0.7936 0.7829 0.7271 0.7184 0.8394 0.8594 0.7737 0.6570 0.7599 0.7837 0.8821











Notes: aSignicance (two-tailed) indicated in parentheses; bstandard deviation; cCronbachs alpha test; dscale of 1 to 10 (deciles), all other factors on a scale of 1 to 5

Table I. Itemised factors: means, standard deviations, reliability, Pearson correlations, and signicance of model variables for sample size of 20 enterprises Reliabilityc HC1 HC2 HC3 Pearson correlations for factorsa SC1 SC2 SC3 EF1 EF2 EF3 0.475 * (0.034) 0.305 (0.191) 0.380 (0.098) 0.514 * (0.202) 0.516 * (0.020) 0.313 (0.179) 2 0.155 (0.515) 2 0.168 (0.480) 0.555 * (0.011) 0.594 * * (0.006) 0.683 * * (0.001) 0.582 * * (0.007) 0.725 * * (0.000) 0.892 * * (0.000) 0.098 (0.681) 0.206 (0.383) 2 0.004 (0.987) 0.676 * (0.001) 0.569 * * (0.009) 0.585 * * (0.007) 0.691 * * (0.001) 0.657 * * (0.002) 0.057 (0.813) 0.304 (0.192) 0.120 (0.613) 0.610 * * (0.004) 0.166 (0.484) 0.561 * (0.010) 0.504 * (0.024) 0.219 (0.355) 0.240 (0.308) 0.015 (0.950) 0.519 * (0.019) 0.260 (0.268) 0.616 * * (0.004) 0.114 (0.633) 0.085 (0.721) 2 0.045 (0.852) 0.586 * (0.007) 0.336 (0.147) 0.059 (0.805) 2 0.020 (0.935) 2 0.003 (0.989) 0.684 * * (0.001) 0.474 * (0.035) 0.156 (0.511) 2 0.321 (0.168) 0.453 * (0.045) 0.069 (0.773) 0.327 (0.159) 0.140 (0.556) 0.231 (0.327) 2 0.015 (0.950) 2 0.003 (0.989)



3.840 3.580

0.7444 0.7757



















comparative measures of performance. Follow-up interviews with managers of rms that participated in the initial survey round provided some insight into why this might be the case. Varying possible explanations were suggested. Generally, though, it is fair to say that the external environment does appear to be an important though not necessarily overriding determinant of enterprise performance, whereby the degree of importance appears to vary with the extent of international activity engaged in by the individual rm. Those rms that drew revenues mostly from international business ventures tended to de-emphasize the importance of domestic, external factors. Those, on the other hand, that depended on domestic (Russian) sales were much more concerned with external factors such as the legal and scal infrastructure, the nature and structure of the lobbying networks in and around key governmental and large client decision-making bodies. Exploratory factor analysis Table I summarizes the outcome of the statistical analysis, which was carried out using SPSS for the MS Windows platform. The following statistical analyses were executed: . Cronbachs test for reliability; . Pearson correlation analysis; and . regression analysis. Reliability. The results for the reliability test (Cronbachs alpha) indicate a very high degree of consistency for each of the factors. All score greater than 0.7, with the exception of one factor (EF2: technological). We attribute this high degree of reliability to the fact that one of the authors (ET) personally administered the survey questionnaire with the responding participants in their native language. Questions that might normally have led to random error were thereby claried at the source. The high reliability scores provide condence despite the relatively small sample size. Pearson correlation. The correlation analysis provides some basic evidence of the linkage between the enterprises intellectual capital practices and enterprise performance by indicating the level of association between the various factors and outcomes. While these, strictly speaking, do not necessarily indicate dependence, high levels of association do suggest the possibility of dependence. As would be expected, we see relative high association between the various intellectual capital factors, such as between human capital and structural capital (case in point: the strong linkage between the attitudinal dimension of human capital (HC2) and the renewal and development dimension of structural capital (SC3)). We attribute this to the fact that intellectual capital integrates a complex combination of organization culture, knowledge, innovation and organization mechanisms relating to learning and renewal. Often these are inextricably linked. Interestingly, the data also suggest a signicantly stronger association between intellectual capital and enterprise performance than between intellectual capital and external factors. The only signicant association (correlation value of 0.453) is between the socio-political factor (EF1) and enterprise performance (EP1). We suspect that his may reect the lingering negative legacy associated with the legislative and scal infrastructure in the perception of Russian SIE managers.

IC practices in Russian enterprises 703

JIC 8,4


We nd that all human capital and structural capital factors have a signicant association with performance outcomes (EP1), while only HC1 (competence), HC2 (attitudinal ) and renewal and development (SC3) show signicant association with comparative performance (EP2). We suggest that the reason for this lies in the much more subjective character of the comparative performance (EP2) measure, and perhaps the greater scale (decile-type scale) used for this factor in the survey instrument. Nonetheless, the analysis of the data does support our hypothesis that internal factors are perceived to be more important at least by association for enterprise performance than external ones. Regression analysis. The regression analysis is a much more direct measure of impact of one variable on another. Tables II and III summarize the regression analyses carried out on the data gathered from the 20 Russian SIEs. Table III shows the outcome of the analysis wherein all individual factors (HC1 through EP2) are considered; Table II summarizes the outcome of the analysis based on averaged factors (for example, where HC represents the averaged value of HC1, HC2 and HC3). In keeping with the high degree of reliability indicated by the Cronbachs alpha values, the analysis shows very high values of the correlation coefcient R 2. The value of the adjusted R 2 of 0.438 for SC3, which indicates the dependence of EP1 on SC3, suggests that 43.8 percent of the variance can be attributed to SC3 alone. The combined effects of independent variables SC3 and EF1 give an even higher outcome of the adjusted R 2 (0.597). From this analysis, we see again that it is predominantly the internal, intellectual capital-related, factors that are most prevalent in determining enterprise performance. The outcomes for EP2 are again consistent with correlation analysis discussed earlier not as clear. For this outcome, however, we also nd the strongest dependence between human capital (HC1: competence) and enterprise performance. We suspect, as pointed out earlier, due to the fact that the more highly subjective nature of the comparative measures of performance leave more margin for random error. For the analysis of the averaged factors, we nd the earlier ndings substantiated: internal factors relating to the rms human and structural capital are in the case of both performance dependent variables the most important.
Factors (averaged) HC SC HC Standard error of the estimate 0.3525 0.3782 1.560

Table II. Regression analysis: averaged factors (predictors) HC, SC and EF

Dependent EP1: performance outcomes EP2: comparative performance

Adjusted R 2 0.547 0.479 0.246

Signicance 0.000 0.000 0.015

Dependent Table III. Regression analysis: all factors considered EP1: performance outcomes EP2: comparative performance

Factors SC3 SC3 and EF1 HC1

Adjusted R 2 0.438 0.597 0.317

Standard error of the estimate 0.3926 0.3327 1.523

Signicance 0.001 0.000 0.006

Conrmatory factor analysis This nal analysis seeks to test the outcomes of the data analysis against the theoretical framework in question. For this analysis, we opted to apply the partial least squares technique of structural equation modeling. Specically, we used a beta version of a very recent software development that offers the signicant advantage of being able to handle small samples sizes. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in Figure 2. Figure 2 presents the outcome of this analysis. The exploratory factor analysis outcomes of the statistical analysis carried out independently and reported on in the previous sections are largely conrmed. Additionally, the outcomes of this analysis suggest a congruence of the ndings with the theoretical framework suggesting the greater importance of the rms internal resource (intellectual capital) base in relation to factors in the external environment. It is interesting to note that the congruence is achieved only for the more directly measurable performance outcomes, however. We believe that this can be explained on the basis of the fact that the class of performance measures relating to comparative performance is much more difcult to assess. Hence, we are picking up a greater degree of uncertainty, while, surprisingly, the overall consistency remains relatively high. Conclusions The work reported on in this paper represents work in progress. As such, the outcomes and conclusions reported in this paper should be viewed as preliminary ndings. Despite the rather limited sample size, the highly consistent data do allow us to derive a number of conclusions: . The respondents of this study i.e. small and medium-sized innovative enterprises in the St Petersburg area have identied intellectual capital as the most important factor driving competitive performance in the market.

IC practices in Russian enterprises 705

Figure 2. Partial least squares analysis outcome

JIC 8,4


Specically, this covers those factors relating to human capital and structural capital. Our hypothesis that internal factors outweigh the potential effects of external factors in the difcult environment of the Russian transitional economy is largely substantiated, both by the exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses. The fact that the impact of external economic factors per se are not perceived to be detrimental to the business development and competitiveness is perhaps an indication of the improving situation of SIEs in Russia. However, we need to exercise caution before jumping to conclusions too quickly, as the follow-up interviews have indicated. External factors cannot simply be disregarded. They still remain an important determinant, especially in the case of rms focused primarily on the domestic market. If anything, however, the rules of the game are changing in this area, with mechanisms such as effective lobbying becoming much more important.

References Birchall, D.W. and Tovstiga, G. (2001), Assessing the rms strategic knowledge portfolio: a framework and methodology, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 419-34. Bontis, N. (1999), Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: framing and advancing the state of the eld, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 Nos 5-8, pp. 433-62. Bruton, G.D. and Rubanik, Y. (2002), Resources of the rm, Russian high-technology start-ups, and rm growth, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, pp. 553-76. Burpitt, W.J. and Bigoness, W. (1997), Leadership and innovation among teams the impact of empowerment, Small Group Research, Vol. 3, pp. 414-23. Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), A resource-based theory of the rm: knowledge versus opportunism, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501. Grant, R.M. (2002), The knowledge-based view of the rm, in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Javenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. (1998), An information company in Mexico: extending the resource-based view of the rm to a developing country context, Information Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 342-61. Papadakis, V. and Bourantas, D. (1998), The chief executive ofcer as corporate champion of technological innovation, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 1, pp. 89-109. Sanchez, C.M. and McKinley, W. (1998), Environmental regulator inuence and product innovation: the contingency effect of organizational characteristics, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 4, pp. 257-78. Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital, Nicholas Brealey, London. Thacker, C. and Handscombe, B. (2003), Innovation, competitive position and industry attractiveness: a tool to assist SMEs, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 230-9.

Tovstiga, G. (1999), Proling the knowledge worker in the knowledge-intensive organization: emerging roles, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 Nos 5-8, pp. 731-44. Tovstiga, G., Den Hamer, P., Popova, V.A., Emov, I.P., Moskalev, S.V. and Bortnik, I.M. (2004), Preparing Russian small innovative enterprises for international competitiveness: a scoping study, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 2, pp. 89-108. Turgoose, C. and Thacker, C. (2000), Innovation in Manufacturing SMEs in South Yorkshire, IWP, Shefeld. West, M.A. and Anderson, N.R. (1996), The innovation in top management teams, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 680-93. Yu, T.F.-L. (2001), Toward a capabilities perspective of the small rm, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 185-97. Corresponding author George Tovstiga can be contacted at: george.tovstiga@

IC practices in Russian enterprises 707

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: Or visit our web site for further details: