Intellectual capital in service ecosystem perspective: some evidences from university context

In the current “knowledge economy”, organizations are increasingly dependent on intangible resources rather than on tangible ones for the creation of sustainable competitive advantage (Palacios and Galván, 2006). Among the various intangible resources capable of enhancing organizational performance a prominent role is played by Intellectual Capital (IC) (Madhavaram and Hunt, 2017; Sydler et al., 2014; Sullivan, 2000; Stewart and Ruckdeschel, 1998; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997). Although its meaning has been originally investigated in business context, over time, scholars' attention has shifted to public organizations (associations, government agencies, etc.).In this regard, several authors (Paloma Sánchez, et al., 2009; Ramírez et al., 2007; Leitner, 2004) have recognized the importance of IC also in the university setting, attributing to it the capacity, if appropriately managed , to lead all actors directly or indirectly involved in study, research and teaching activities towards a profitable dissemination of common benefits. Not by chance, since the end of last century, some of the major international organizations (such as the European Center for Strategic Management of Universities - ESMU - the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators - EARMA -, the European Commission, etc. ) have promoted numerous initiatives in order to foster greater awareness about IC produced and used in universities (Veltri et al., 2014).Universities are the archetype of knowledge-based organization. They are the pillar of social and economic development thanks to their offered services: higher education, research andknowledge transfer. Although a growing scientific and empirical interest, the efforts aimed at conceptualizing IC in the University setting present two fundamental gaps: little attention has been paid to the IC's ability to promote resource integration and alignment of objectives towards a shared co-creation by heterogeneous actors involved in a same (eco)system; the elements characterizing the different dimensions of IC (Human Capital, Structural Capital, and Relational Capital) have been investigated in a perspective anchored to Good-Dominant Logic, unable of capturing the dynamism that only a service-oriented perspective allows appreciating (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008).Literature about service management and S-DL logic has offered and keeps on offering a great contribution to the chance to interpret phenomena of observed reality through a holistic and inclusive perspective. In particular, service ecosystems lens, enable to capture the dynamics allowing an adaptive service system to survive. In particular, service ecosystem can be understood as service systems capable of providing benefits to every entity belonging to them. Such entities, which can be represented by people, institutions or any other kind of material and immaterial resource, interact with each other for the co-creation of a mutual value, which, irradiating, favors the shaping of the SE inside and outside a given context (Kaartemo et al., 2017; Frow et al., 2016, 2014, Wieland et al., 2012, Vargo and Lusch, 2011).Drawing on the call proposed by Lusch et al. (2016), in order to better understand Service ecosystem perspective, the paper examines university and the role played by University Intellectual Capital in Higher-Education as a broader service environment. The higher-education service represents a fundamental means for the economic and social development of a country (Hussein and Bhamani, 2012).In light of what has been described until now, the work aims to achieve two specific goals: re-reading university in the light of S-DL assumptions, framing it in Service ecosystem perspective; framing University Intellectual Capital (UIC) according to the Service ecosystem perspective.In order to reach the aforementioned objectives, the paper is structured into four sections: at first, an in-depth analysis of theoretical background is proposed, by focusing attention on theconcepts of S-DL, SE and UIC; subsequently, an example is proposed in order to foster a better understanding of what is theoretically debated; finally, conclusions are presented, implications are highlighted and both the limits of the work and insights for future researches are discussed.