Initial Survey Validation for the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Frugal Innovation
Corresponding email: magiswary.dorasamy@mmu.edu.my
Published at : 19 Oct 2022
Volume : IJtech
Vol 13, No 5 (2022)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v13i5.5861
Jayabalan, J., Dorasamy, M., Raman, M., 2022. Initial Survey Validation for the Impact of Intellectual Capital on Frugal Innovation. International Journal of Technology. Volume 13(5), pp. 1126-1138
| Jayamalathi Jayabalan | Faculty of Accountancy and Management, University Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kajang, Selangor, 43000, Malaysia |
| Magiswary Dorasamy | Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Persiaran Multimedia, Cyberjaya, 63100, Malaysia |
| Murali Raman | Asia Pacific University, Kuala Lumpur, 57000, Malaysia |
The
rapidly developing Covid-19 epidemic has resulted in nationwide lockdowns,
putting many higher learning institutions (HLIs) at risk of extinction due to
low profitability and limited finance. This upheaval has increased the pressure
on institutions to capitalize on their intellectual resources and develop new
economic models. HLIs are turning towards digital transformation as e-learning
has become the new normal. This paper explains how pretest and pilot tests were
used to improve the methodological reliability of research instruments and
suggests that it should be a common step in research instrument development.
Pretest, which consists of expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot
testing, were carried out to manage challenges due to dissimilar context
emerging from geographic, linguistic, and cultural differences as the
instrument was adopted from past literature. Six professional experts were
chosen for face validation, followed by a cognitive interview with 10 ten
respondents from the actual respondent's list, which is the management of
private university listed in SETARA Listing 2018. Pilot testing consisting of
30 respondents was conducted in the second stage to check reliability and
validity. Results from expert review and cognitive interviewing allowed the
researcher to quickly resolve issues based on 'respondents' feedback on the
wording problems, relevance, and usability of the questionnaire. The results from the pilot test reliability
analysis revealed that the scales had good internal consistency. Researchers
were able to alter research instruments and enhance the research design because
of the detailed pretest and pilot study conducted, which will guide the
substantive investigation. This was an important aspect of the pretest and
piloting phase since it allowed us to identify issues with the instruments'
efficacy and the model transferability to the Malaysian private HLIs context.
Frugal innovation; Intellectual capital; Information technology capability; Pre-test; Pilot test
In 'today's competitive environment, HLIs seek opportunities for survival and development, which usually entails substantial organizational structure shifts. Competition among HLIs for financial and human-capital resources primarily aims to raise research funds and attract and retain highly talented academicians and students. In terms of public and private HLIs, Malaysian public HLIs have more academic resources and a higher reputation than private HLIs. Thus, they stand a greater advantage in being able to address the demands of students and attract more public donations and institutional support (Anis et al., 2018). As a result, investigating the performance and growth of Malaysian private higher education institutions is the important academic topic.
Private HLIs need to
investigate survival strategies as their cost of delivery is unsustainable to
address issues such as reducing the number of student enrolment, increasing
number of student drop-out, increasing cost of student enrolment and
collaboration with industry. In the extensive education market, there is always
continuous demand to introduce new online programs and services to attract new
recruitment and design low-cost teaching and learning methods rather than
traditional teaching. Therefore, private HLIs must operate efficiently and
become student's first choice whilst continuously reducing delivery costs.
Besides that, HLIs needs to provide rationale programs and curriculum focusing
on real-world demand, enhancing employability upon graduation.
There are internal and external resources that can impact
HLIs operations. Knowledge-based view will be utilized to investigate the
amount and qualities of internal resources such as human resources and
structural resources that HLIs possess as it can influence an organization's
growth and performance (Barney,1991). In
terms of external factors, relational resources will provide HLIs with several
benefits, including the ability to manage competitive tensions, find effective
and resource-efficient solutions, secure better learning advantages, and deal
with uncertainty and volatility in the environment.
Intellectual capital (IC) is a crucial element for value creation in an
organization (Lev, 2001). Although more research on IC are mainly focused on
commercialized private firms and profit seeking firms (Giampaoli et al., 2017), there are still studies conducted in public and
non-profit organization (Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017) .IC is seen as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage (Dezi et al., 2018), able to develop strategies to promote innovation and
continuous growth (Manes-Rossi et al., 2018), Alonso-Gonzalez et al. (2018) because Knowledge-based internal and external resources that could play an
important role in an economic and social context. Therefore, prudent management
of IC, which inclusive human capital, structural capital, and relational
capital, will be able to ensure the effectiveness of the processes and the
capability of the entities to create value. According to Bencsik (2020), the organization leaders must
familiarise themselves with the new requirements, concepts, tools, business
models, and relationships with customers and partners in order to prepare for
the transition, in addition to the workers and technological systems. There is
a shift in the role of universities which traditionally focuses on teaching and
research to create innovative solutions for business through knowledge
creation, application, and dissemination (European
Commission, 2013).
Frugal innovation (FI) is gaining popularity worldwide, not
just in emerging economies, but also in developed nations. According to (Tiwari et al.,
2017), various studies have
highlighted the growing importance of low-cost goods and services, which
indicates the growing demand for cost-effective solutions and the growing
demand for cost-effective solutions and the relevance of FI. FI concepts
emphasize on inventing resource restrictions to maximize value for money. The
three defining criteria of FI are substantial cost reduction, concentration on
core functionalities, and optimized performance level (Weyrauch & Herstatt,
2016). Much of the research on FI focuses on defining the idea as well as the
method of developing inexpensive inventions through FI. However, the
application and function of FI in the business model, on the other hand, also
becomes more essential in the transmission of FI, and it may also serve as an
alternate approach to promote frugality.
Information
Technology Capabilities (ITC), and digitalization plays an important role in
business model to run operations more efficiently and cost-effectively which
can facilitate FI application. Digitalisation conserved time and resources by
allowing for simpler and more effective innovation methods. Furthermore,
digitization opens possibilities for creating more accessible human-machine
interfaces in applications, reducing user complexity. IT frequently enables
low-cost and design value-sensitive innovations, which are examples of frugal
innovations (Bhatti &
Ventresca, 2013, Rao, 2013). One of the aims of frugal innovation is minimizing
technological sophistication without having to compromise user value. According
to Berawi (2017), Businesses and the market as a whole have benefited from
technological advancements, such as cost-effective and efficient goods and
services. Modernizing company businesses by integrating physical
resources, digital technologies, and human creativity is a crucial stage in the
innovative business transformation that could give an organization an advantage
oveits competitors (Berawi et al., 2020). Koroleva &
Kuratova (2020) examined the relationship between the economy's digitization
and the standard of higher education in Russian regions and found out that higher
innovative activity levels were associated with higher quality higher
education.
According to Bezhani (2010), intellectual capital (IC) has
been an interesting topic among academicians, shareholders, and the government.
However, the value of IC is rarely focused on in emerging economies, especially
in private HLIs (Tiwari et al., 2016), and its relationship with costs and performance
efficiency (Barbosa et al., 2016). Hence, examining the association between resource factors
such as Intellectual capital (IC), ITC, and frugal-based performance indicators
will yield practical implications for institutional governance and the basis
for theoretical underpinnings of academic research as valuable insights for
HLIs in other countries experiencing comparable challenges.
1.1. Problem Statement and research objectives
The rapidly developing Covid-19 epidemic has
resulted in nationwide lockdowns, putting many higher learning institutions
(HLIs) at risk of extinction due to low profitability and limited finance. This
upheaval has increased the pressure on institutions to capitalize on their
intellectual resources and develop new economic models. HLIs are turning
towards digital transformation as e-learning has become the new normal.
Even HLIs with access to the internet and IT
infrastructure for teaching and learning applications are doubtful to adopt a
completely digitalized approach. There is a dearth of staff support and
engagement, technical understanding, professional employees, and staff training
in information technology (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2021). On the other hand, education institutions must remain relevant to
preserve long-term viability. Industry developments and needs must be reflected
in the programs or courses offered.
Therefore, due to the changing economic conditions,
private HLIs are extremely exposed to even little fluctuations in income. As a
result, financial stability and long-term commercial viability are critical to
their existence. Frugal innovation (FI) may be able to assist ailing HLIs in
continuing their innovative activities in the absence of significant financial
investment and high resource shortages.
The researchers adopted research instrument items to
develop a questionnaire that measured research objectives to investigate the
relationship between Intellectual Capital, Information Technology Capability
and Frugal Innovation. A pretest and pilot studies were c conducted to manage
challenges due to dissimilar context emerging from geographic, linguistic, and
cultural differences as the instrument was adopted from past literature. Expert
review and cognitive interviewing were employed as validating tools to ensure
clarity and relevance in the study population. This paper explains how pretest
and pilot tests were used to improve the methodological reliability of research
instruments and suggests that it should be a common step in instrument
creation. Since the pilot test and subsequent analysis were undertaken for
small sample size, it limits the ability to generalize and conclude the
findings to larger groups of population or institutions.
Given that backdrop, this paper aims to evaluate
face and content validity and acceptability of the questionnaire instrument
developed to investigate the variables intended in Malaysian private HLIs. This
paper is organized as follow: section 2 literature review on the main concepts
of the research is explained, section 3 describes the research instrument
utilized for this study, section 4 explains the method and process of pretest
and pilot test conducted, and section 4 represents result analysis, section 5
outlines the conclusions of this paper.
Literature Review
2.1. Intellectual
Capital (IC)
Intellectual Capital (IC) is believed to have an influence on frugal
innovation. According to Stewart (1997), IC is intellectual content that has been structured, acquired, and
exploited to generate wealth by creating a higher-valued asset. According to Bontis (1998), IC is described as human capital
(HC), which consists of experience, skills, employee development, teamwork;
structural capital (SC) includes databases, proceedings, patents, licenses,
trademarks, manuals, and organizational structures and Relational capital (RC)
which focuses on networks of relationships. IC encompasses a variety of nontangible
in HLIs, such as business processes, patents, member skills, competencies,
talents, innovation capacity, reputation, and relationships with external
parties. Several demands for research to enhance the management of IC in HLI
setup have been made (Pedro et al., 2019). Business models are often linked to resource acquisition and allocation
in -Knowledge Based View (KBV), an extension of Resource Based View (RBV).
Extraordinary value will be created through leveraging intangibles and
knowledge assets. To attain FI in private HLIs, there is a scarcity of research
that examines the links between organizational IC aspects and ITC.
2.2. Information
Technology Capabilities (ITC)
In the digitalized era of the knowledge economy,
technical capabilities have grown in prominence, while information technology
(IT) is considered an intangible capacity that may considerably improve
organizational performance.IT capability development is critical for deploying
and managing IT-based Knowledge and resources for improved performance. Hence,
based on dynamic capability theory, ITC will enable innovative processes to
increase productivity, improve customer relationships, and reduce operational
costs. In addition, according to Price &
Kirkwood (2014), there is a lack of IT expertise, commitment, or
objective to undertake digital transformation effectively. Many organizations,
especially private HLIs, have been confronted with issues such as a lack of
technological integration, slow adoption of IT for strategic purposes, and a lack
of understanding and application of technology in their operations. As a
result, there is still an issue that most institutions invest a significant
amount of money in IT system development that fails to deliver the anticipated
outcomes and value to the organizations. As a result, Knowledge, skills, and
abilities play a significant role in establishing IT competency inside an
organization. However, this study focuses on the intangible usage of IT skills
to examine its impact on FI and performance.
2.3. Frugal innovation
Frugal innovation (FI) is designed to help
businesses with limited resources achieve greater social and economic value (Tiwari et al,
2016). It is a new business model that emphasizes
resource efficiency, low-cost products and services, and product and service
functionality and performance (refer to figure 1).
Figure 3 Frugal innovation concept
With limited physical and financial resources, FI
includes managing the entire value chain, which improves product quality and
reduces costs. As a result, effective resource management, complete utilization
of existing components, adoption of cost-effective technology, and streamlined
design can help a HLIs save costs. This research aims to fill a deficiency in
the literature on how IC may have a substantial influence on FI in HLIs,
allowing them to do ""more with fewer resources"". A conceptual
framework is developed based on knowledge-based view theory and dynamic
capabilities theory.
3.1. Research
Instrument
Pretesting is the stage of survey method where questionnaires are evaluated on participants in the target population to assess the validity and reliability of the survey instruments before their final distribution. Pretesting is frequently seen as essential to the creation of survey questionnaires and is also essential to enhance data collecting for quality-of-life research. It uses a range of techniques or combinations of techniques. The most crucial factor in creating and assessing measuring instruments is validity. The degree to which an instrument actually measured what it was supposed to measure is known as validity. In other terms, an instrument that measures what should be measured is said to be valid. The researcher employed face validity and content validity in this study to guarantee test validity. Figure 4 shows the summary of the pretesting done for this research:
Figure 4 Pretesting process
Face
and content validity and acceptability are three factors that need to be
considered in a cross-cultural adaptation of the questionnaire. Face validity
is a determination of whether an instrument looks to be measuring the area of
interest. In contrast, content validity is a determination of whether the
instrument's content appropriately covers the domain of interest. Finally,
acceptability is defined as the degree to which a respondent finds an
instrument acceptable and inclusive of factors such as format and
administration time. The following table 1 is constructs and description of
measurements:
Table 1
Constructs and description of measurements
|
Number of
items |
Number of
questions |
Source | |
|
Human capital |
3 |
30 |
Sharabati et
al., (2010) |
|
Structural capital |
3 |
30 |
Sharabati et
al., (2010) |
|
Relational capital |
3 |
30 |
Sharabati et
al., (2010) |
|
Information technology capabilities |
3 |
21 |
New item
proposed based on Dynamic Capability theory (Lu
& Ramamurthy, 2011) |
|
Frugal innovation |
3 |
9 |
New item is
proposed based on Knowledge based theory (Tiwari
et al., 2016). |
The questionnaire was divided into four sections that related to a)
socio-demographic characteristics of respondents; b) Intellectual Capital
dimension including Human Capital, Structural Capital, and Relational Capital;
c) Information Technology Capability and d) Frugal innovation.
3.2. Pretest process
Expert
reviews are widely employed as a questionnaire assessment approach in pretest,
although empirical research has been done on them. Six professional reviewers
were chosen for face validation, and a standardized rating form was used to
analyze questions in the survey questionnaire. The experts for this process
were selected based on their experience and affiliations, latest contribution
in HLIs, and expertise on the topic using the purposive sampling approach.
Sample sizes are typically low, which range from n = 5 for a single round to n
= 15 across multiple rounds (Beatty & Willis, 2007). Survey methodologists, subject matter
experts from HLIs field, language experts, and others experienced with
questionnaire design were selected to detect possible flaws with a survey
questionnaire. Two main goals of expert review are to expose issues with a
questionnaire survey so that they may be fixed before it goes into the field
and to categorize things into subgroups that are less likely to have
measurement errors. E-mail was used to contact the experts and invite them to
participate. The experts chosen preferred to maintain their anonymity.
This process is followed by cognitive
interview which was conducted with ten respondents from the actual 'list, which
is the management of private universities listed in SETARA Listing 2018. Cognitive
interviewing proved to be valuable for face and content validation of the
questionnaire during pretest. The main purpose of cognitive interview is to
provide evidence on content validity to determine items that are misaligned
between the 'interpretation and the'researcher's intention. The items are
tested for their clarity and relevance and to identify problematic questions
that will not be able to provide expected respondents. According to Collins (2003), the cognitive interview is
intended to determine whether the respondents read and understand the questions
as worded and whether respondents able to answer them in the way the researcher
required. It also allows the researchers to find out whether the information
can be retrieved or available. Cognitive Interviews (CI) can be utilized in the
creation of scales to guide item revision decisions, as well as give evidence
of validity based on test content and response processes (Castillo-Díaz and Padilla (2013).
Private universities are large
organizations with various levels of leadership. A questionnaire survey will be
conducted with academicians holding a managerial position
as the representative of the institutions such as chancellor, vice chancellor,
directors, deans, deputy deans, and HODs from private universities to obtain
their general views and perspectives. Respondents can work in various
departments such as business studies, tourism management, finance,
architecture, psychology, and mechanical engineering will be used for this
research.
Foreign branch Universities are excluded from the population sample as university are controlled and operated by foreign education providers. Furthermore, public universities are also excluded as their funding mechanism, cost structures, budget allocation, and academic program are different and controlled by the government and ministry. Therefore, the respondents in public universities and foreign branch universities will not be able to provide valid data. Researchers usually used the following criteria (Table 2) as the selection criteria:
Table 2 Respondent selection criteria
|
1st Stage |
Private universities (53) |
|
2nd stage |
Private universities based on SETARA '18' |
|
3rd stage |
Academic Management staffs (senior Management and
faculty management) |
The respondents with
similar attributes are selected based on the actual 'respondents' sample list
to determine the content validity of the instrument used in the survey. Through
the cognitive interview method, the researchers aim to gain a few
understandings of the survey questionnaire as follows:
a)
To
understand how respondents interpreted the question from their perspective and
determine whether it is similar to what the researcher required and intended (Collins, 2003)
b) To determine items that that need a reorganization of sentence structure
and wordings to avoid misunderstanding and missing data
c)
To check
on the relevance of language or term used based on the context, culture and
geographical settings to avoid misinterpretation (Hurst
et al.,
2015)
d) to identify the estimated time taken to complete the survey (Hurst et al., 2015)
Researchers used the think-aloud approach, verbal probing, and observation to measure how respondents comprehended and responded to questions. As participants read each survey question aloud, the researcher will ask the respondents to articulate their ideas and understanding of the concept and then seek to answer the question as they understood it (Hurst et al., 2015). Probing will discover terms that may be misunderstood, allowing the respondent to restate the inquiry in their own words. These observations will provide information regarding the suitability of the research questions, terms, themes, layout, validity, and credibility (Hurst et al., 2015). The following Figure 5 below shows the cognitive interview process:
Figure 5 Cognitive process
3.3. Pilot
Test Process
The content validation of the survey questionnaire using a pilot test was the second stage to check on the reliability and validity consist of 30 respondents. It was a 120-item questionnaire modified after the pretest to investigate academic 'leaders' perceptions regarding IC, ITC, and FI. Respondents are academicians with management positions in private HLIs.
4.1. Results
for Expert review
Six Panel experts were requested to give a qualitative
comment. The experts were asked to indicate the
suitability of the interval measurement scale used for this item and evaluate
whether the questions are in perfect match, moderate match, and poor match to
the construct. The following Table 3 summarizes the results of the expert
review:
Table 3 Summary
result of Expert review
Feedback | General Comments |
1. Format acceptable. | Avoid lengthy sentence and make it clear cut sentences |
2. Exclude academicians in the demographic section. | Academicians may not be able to answer all the questions |
3. Reduce the number of items. | Too many questions.
|
4. Split the double-barrel questions. | Question is too long |
5. Choose the most relevant items only. | How relevant is this system question? Some are not relevant |
6. Need some corrections in sentence structure. | Difficult to answer-need to be general, not too specific |
7. Improve the sentence structure and simplify to be more consistent. | Use a Straightforward phrase. Change some of the word choice |
4.2. Results for Cognitive Interview
To assure relevance in the local
social and cultural context, the language and words used in the higher
education and professional categories needed to be familiar to respondents in
the private universities in Malaysia. In 10 interviews, issues with the item
completeness and understanding, 'respondents' judgment when answering, and
responses given were identified. Eighty-two things stayed untouched, 37 items
were rephrased, and one item was added, according to the findings. Some of the
'questionnaire's instruction part was also revised. When there is a mismatch between the respondents'
judgments and the researcher's aim, alterations are required. 'Respondents'
qualitative responses are then utilized to influence modifications to
questions. The following Table 4 shows the modification of the number of
questions. Even though time-consuming, cognitive interviewing proved to be an
effective method for uncovering issues in an instrument that might go unnoticed
and undermine its validity.
Table 4 The summary result on questionnaire modification
|
Construct |
Number of questions |
|
Human capital |
17 |
|
Structural capital |
20 |
|
Relational capital |
18 |
|
Information technology capabilities |
20 |
|
Frugal innovation |
10 |
|
Frugal innovation |
10 |
4.3. Results for Pilot test
Most of the respondents are Chinese (53%), followed by Indians (27%) and Malays 20% (Figure 6). Besides that, most of the respondents have 16 years and above working experience (N = 57%), while 20% with 11 till 15years' experience and 17% with five till ten years working experience. Only 7% of the respondents are with less than 5 'years' experience (Figure 7). This result shows the respondents observed are with vast experience. Based on table 5, the vast majority of the respondents are heads of departments (N = 14, 47%), followed by deputy deans (N = 7, 23%), and deans (N = 5, 17%). From the data collected, there were 37% males and 63% females (Figure 8).
Figure 6 Respondents by Ethnicity
Figure 7 Respondents by Working Experience
Figure 8 Respondents by Gender
Table 5 Respondents by Academic Positions
|
Academic Leader Position |
No |
% |
|
Vice-Chancellor/
Pro Vice-Chancellor/ Vice-President/Chief Academic Officer |
1 |
3 |
|
Dean/Director |
5 |
17 |
|
Deputy
Dean/Deputy director |
7 |
23 |
|
Head
of the department/Head of the Programme |
14 |
47 |
|
Programme
Coordinators/Assistants |
3 |
10 |
|
Total |
30 |
90 |
The survey
instrument's reliability was assessed (Table 6). Results from the reliability
analysis revealed that the scales had good internal consistency. The
'Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from a low of 0.74 to a high of 0.983.
Therefore, all variables are accepted as the Cronbach Alpha score is more than
0.60, indicating that the items have strong internal consistency and stability (Creswell, 2018). Results from the pilot study revealed that the
initial version of the questionnaire collected reliable data. No further
changes were considered necessary for the questionnaire.
Table 6 Reliability Test
|
Main
Constructs |
Constructs |
Dimensions/Measurements |
Cronbach
alpha |
Number
of item |
|
Intellectual
Capital |
Human Capital |
|
0.931 |
|
|
Learning
and education |
0.853 |
6 |
||
|
Experience
and expertise |
0.74 |
5 |
||
|
Innovation
and Creativity |
0.899 |
6 |
||
|
Structural
Capital |
|
0.961 |
|
|
|
Systems
and programmes |
0.908 |
7 |
||
|
Research
and development |
0.935 |
7 |
||
|
Intellectual
Property Rights (IPRs) |
0.95 |
6 |
||
|
Relational
Capital |
|
0.975 |
|
|
|
Strategic
alliances, licensing and agreement |
0.948 |
6 |
||
|
External
stakeholder |
0.941 |
6 |
||
|
Knowledge
about students |
0.943 |
6 |
||
|
Mediating
variable |
Information
technology Capability |
|
0.983 |
|
|
IT
infrastructure |
0.956 |
6 |
||
|
IT
business spanning |
0.975 |
6 |
||
|
IT
proactive stance |
0.969 |
8 |
||
|
Dependent
Variable |
Frugal
Innovation |
|
0.959 |
|
|
Substantial
cost reduction |
0.737 |
3 |
||
|
Create
a frugal ecosystem |
0.94 |
4 |
||
|
Focus
on core functionality and performance |
0.964 |
3 |
Pretest
consisting of expert review, cognitive interviewing and pilot testing allowed
researchers to uncover non-problematical and problematical questionnaire items.
In addition, it was noticed that the questionnaire's layout might be improved.
Pretest proved to be an unavoidable method of research instrument development,
although the process is time-consuming. Besides that, respondents have provided
feedback on the problems in the wording, and the relevance and usability of the
questionnaire, allowing the researcher to quickly resolve any issues. Face
validity improves because of the results being implemented. Hence, pretest
ensures that the questionnaires are looking for information that respondents
have and can obtain, and all respondents understand the questions in the same
way. Pretest ensures that the wording of questions provides respondents with
all the necessary information they require to be able to answer them in a way
required by the researcher. Identifying problems that may be resolved through a
thorough examination of the pretest methods and results from the pilot study by
enhancing the reliability and validity of the research. A well-planned and
administered pilot study could improve the quality of the research since the
findings may be used to influence subsequent stages of the research. As
conclusion, researchers were able to alter research instruments and enhance the
research design because of the detailed pretest and pilot study conducted,
which will guide the substantive investigation. This was an essential aspect of
the pretest and piloting phase since it allowed us to identify issues with the
instruments' efficacy and the model's transferability to Malaysian private
HLIs. In the present study, after making some minor adjustments to the
questionnaire instrument, the findings of this pilot research confirmed that
the objectives of the proposed main study could be achieved, and subsequent
main research could be conducted. Finally, the fact that the pilot study was
undertaken for a small sample size limits the ability to apply the findings to
larger groups of populations.
This
work was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, under the
Fundamental Research Grant Fund (FRGS/1/2020/SS02/MMU/02/3).
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| R1-IE-5861-20220819130001.pdf | --- |
Alonso-Gonzalez, A.,
Peris-Ortiz, M., Chacon, L.A.P., 2018.
Corporate Universities as a New Paradigm and Source of Social Innovation,
Sustainability, Technology and Education in The XXI Century. Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation, Springer, Cham, pp.
153–169
Anis, A., Islam, R., Abdullah, N.A., 2018. Challenges Faced by Malaysian Private Hlis in Providing Quality Education: A Thematic
Analysis. Quality Assurance in Education,
Volume 26(3), pp. 349–373
Barbosa, S., Vale,
J., Teixeira, V.V., Castelo, B.M., 2016. Intellectual Capital and Performance in Higher Education
Organizations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Theory and Applications in
the Knowledge Economy, Aveiro, Portugal
Barney, J., 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage. Journal of Management, Volume 17, pp. 99–120
Beatty, P.C., Willis,
G., 2007. Research
Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 71, pp. 287–311
Bencsik, A., 2020. Challenges of Management in the Digital Economy. International Journal of Technology, Volume 11(6), pp. 1275–1285
Berawi, M.A., 2017. Stimulating Innovation and Creativity: The
Way Forward. International Journal of
Technology, Volume 8(1), pp. 1–4
Berawi, M.A.,
Suwartha, N., Asvial, M., Harwahyu, R., Suryanegara, M., Setiawan, E.A.,
Surjandari, I., Zagloel, T.Y.M., Maknun, I.J., 2020. Digital Innovation: Creating Competitive
Advantages, International Journal of
Technology, Volume 11(6), pp. 1076–1080
Bezhani, I., 2010.
Intellectual Capital Reporting at UK Universities. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Volume 11(2), pp. 179–207
Bhatti, Y.A.,
Ventresca, M., 2012. The Emerging
Market for Frugal Innovation: Fad, Fashion or Fit? Working Paper in the SSRN – Social
Science Research Network
Bontis, N., 1998.
Intellectual Capital: An Exploratory Study that Develops Measures and Models. Management Decision, Volume 36(2), pp.
63–76
Cabero-Almenara, J.,
Guillén-Gámez, F.D., Ruiz-Palmero, J., Palacios-Rodríguez,
A., 2021. Digital Competence of Higher Education
Professor According to Digcompedu. Statistical Research Methods with ANOVA
Between Fields of Knowledge in Different Age Ranges. Education and Information Technologies, Volume 26, pp. 4691–4708.
Castillo-Díaz, M.,
Padilla, J.L., 2013. How Cognitive
Interviewing Can Provide Validity Evidence of The Response Processes to Scale
Items. Social Indicators Research,
Volume 114(3), pp. 963–75
Collins, D., 2003). Pretesting Survey Instruments: An
Overview of Cognitive Methods. Quality of
life research, Volume 12(3), pp. 229–238
Creswell, J.W., 2010. Educational Research-Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. In 4th Editions, Pearson Merril Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Dezi, L., Pisano, P.,
Pironti, M., Papa, A., 2018. Unpacking Open Innovation Neighborhoods: Le Milieu of the Lean Smart City. Management Decision, Volume 56(6), pp. 1247–1270
European Commission, 2003. The role of the universities in the Europe
of Knowledge. Available online at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-role-of-universities-in-the-europe-of-knowledge.html
Giampaoli, D.,
Ciambotti, M., Bontis, N., 2017. Knowledge Management, Problem Solving and
Performance in Top Italian Firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume
21(2), pp. 355–375
Hurst S, Arulogun O.S, Owolabi M.O., Akinyemi, R., Uvere, E., Warth, S., Ovbiagele, B., 2015. Pretesting Qualitative Data Collection Procedures to Facilitate
Methodological Adherence and Team Building in Nigeria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Volume 14, pp. 53–64
Koroleva, E.,
Kuratova, A., 2020. Higher Education and Digitalization of the
Economy: The Case of Russian Regions, International
Journal of Technology, Volume 11(6), pp. 1181–1190
Lev, B., 2001. Intangibles:
Management, Measurement and Reporting. Brookings Institution, Washington,
DC
Lu, Y., Ramamurthy, K., 2011. Understanding the Link Between Information
Technology Capability and Organizational Agility: An Empirical Examination. MIS Quarterly, Volume 35(4), pp. 931–954
Manes-Rossi, F., Nicolo, G., Tartaglia-Polcini, P., 2018. New Trends in Intellectual Capital Reporting: Exploring Online
Intellectual Capital Disclosure in Italian Universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 19(4), pp. 814–835
Pedro, E., Leitão,
J., Alves, H., 2019. The
Intellectual Capital of Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 20(13), pp. 355–381
Price, L., Kirkwood, A., 2014. Using Technology for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Critical Review of the Role of Evidence in Informing Practice. Higher Education Research & Development, Volume 33(3), pp. 549–564
Rao, B.C., 2013. How disruptive is frugal? Technology in Society, Volume 35(1), pp.
65–73
Sangiorgi, D., Siboni, B., 2017. The Disclosure of Intellectual Capital in Italian Universities: What Has Been Done and
What Should Be Done. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Volume 18(2), pp. 354–372
Sharabati, A., Jawad,
S., Bontis, N., 2010. Intellectual
Capital and Business Performance in the Pharmaceutical
Sector of Jordan. Management Decision,
Volume 48(1), pp.105–131
Stewart, T., 1997. The
New Wealth of Organizations, Nicholas Brealey, London
Tiwari, R., Fischer,
L., Kalogerakis, K., 2016. Frugal Innovation in
Scholarly and Social Discourse:
An Assessment of Trends and Potential Societal Implications. Joint working paper of Fraunhofer MOEZ Leipzig
and Hamburg University of Technology in the BMBF-ITA project, Leipzig-Hamburg
Tiwari, R., Fischer,
L., Kalogerakis, K., 2017. Frugal Innovation: An
Assessment of Scholarly Discourse, Trends and Potential Societal Implications.
In: Herstatt, C., Tiwari, R. (Eds.), Lead Market India. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 13–35
Weyrauch, T.,
Herstatt C., 2016. What is Frugal Innovation? Three Defining Criteria. Journal
of Frugal Innovation, Volume 2(1), pp. 1–17