intelleCtual Capital approaCh to modern management through the perspeCtive of a Company’s value added poveiKis inteleKtiniam Kapitalui pridĖtinĖs vertĖs poŽiŪriu

. The importance of value creation in small and medium­sized business companies has always been in focus. The changing environment makes a strong impact on all companies all over the world. Nowadays, the value added, which is created by the company, not only depends on tangible but also on intangible assets. It is not enough just to manage internal resources to be efficient or generate high value added. Knowledge and information as an important tool for the management of the ex­ ternal environment have become a new factor of a company. Since elements of the intellectual capital system are intangible and hardly measurable in company’s value added, this paper aims to create a model for the analysis of the creation of a company’s value added through intellectual capital. Subsequent to the review of literature on value creation and management, the authors proposed a model for value creation through intermediate, which presented three main elements of value added creation.

The authors believe that the study of the process of va lue creation through intellectual capital as a model, will allow using a more efficient integration of industrialisation elements into a business strategy. In the Information Age, effective use of intellectual capital is the most important factor that determines the success or failure of a business (Grabot et al. 1996;Goh 2005). To achieve superior perfor mance and competitive advantage, companies have shifted their focus from investment in tangible assets to investment in intangibles. Intellectual capital is one of these intangibles with human capital, structural capital, and customer capital as its components (Chang 2004).
Internal resources used to be primary inputs into pro cesses of organizational value creation; however, classical economic laws are hardly applicable to knowledge and ot her intangible resources. Based on the intellectual capital approach, the paper begins the research that explores the effect of intangible resource on the creation of added va lue. In the modern knowledgebased economy, the growing distance between the market and book value is attributed to intangible assets that cannot be properly measured and reported within the traditional accounting framework. It is also possible for each company to use a different accounting method (Laing et al. 2010). Although various methods have been proposed for measuring intellectual capital, none of these methods can, in and of itself, satisfy all the needs of an organisation for measuring intellectual capital.

Intellectual capital approach
The concept of intellectual capital started to formalise in the early 1990s, once Edvinsson and Malone (1997), pre sented the work of Skandia as a supplement to the annual shareholders report to describe the "true" value of the com pany. A new model was created to identify the roots of a company's value by measuring hidden dynamic factors that underlie "the visible company of buildings and products". By the end of the 1990s, references to intellectual capital in contemporary business publications were regular (Bontis 1999;Stewart 1991). Various definitions have been given by researchers to the concept of intellectual capital (Brooking 1996;Bontis 1996;Roos et al. 1997;Stewart 1997;Bontis 1999;O'Donnel et al. 2000;Bowman, Ambrosini 2010). Many scientists started to define intellectual capital and

Introduction
It can be observed that starting from Taylorian organisa tions that prevailed between 1945 and 1975, operations improvement was synonymous with maximisation of profit growth. Performance expressions were purely financial: efficiency or the workmanship, productivity ratios com puted every month, or the turnover computed every year (Chandler 1988). During the modern period between 1975 and 2014, performance has progressively become expres sed using multiple criteria, integrating such technical and knowledge criteria as quality levels and delivery dates in addition to costs (Kaplan, Norton 1992;Lebas 1995;Grabot, Geneste 1998). From this perspective, technical and knowledge reports on the status of processes have been introduced (Fortuin 1988;Kay 1995;Berrah et al. 2000) as provided in Table 1. Moreover, nowadays performance does not only de pend on production processes; therefore, new performance expressions are considered not only at the strategic level but also at all decision levels (strategic, tactical and ope rational). Thus, in terms of performance expressions in a modern company, knowledge must be considered from top to bottom for all the activities or processes to be controlled (Bititci 1995;Rangone 1996;Ghalayini et al. 1997;Suwignjo et al. 2000). ended up with similar opinions (Bontis 1999;Stewart 1991;Brooking 1996;Standfield 1999;Rylander et al. 2000). What resources actually make up these generic capital forms is unique to each and every organisation, as only those re sources that are important for creating value should be included in constructing the distinction tree for an orga nisation (Bontis 1999).
Intellectual capital approach helps us to develop a stra tegy that focuses on intangible resources, allowing them to be managed more effectively and increasing in shareholder value. To conclude, different scientists understand intel lectual capital as the sum of all knowledge in the company that is able to generate company's value added and is affected by knowledge quality and knowledge productivity (Bang et al. 2010). Various approaches were developed before the concept of intellectual capital appeared ( Table 2).
The efficiency of a value chain as one of the key inputs to value added was well understood by Porter (1979). Contemporary knowledge intensive companies have more advantages in a more complex environment. The changing environment replaced the perception of company's value added sources. Reliance on productive tangible assets such as "raw materials, fixed capital, and even managerial know ledge" no longer account for investments made and wealth created by new and prospering companies (OECD 1996). The intellectual capital literature draws on aspects of practi cal applications, providing a framework for explaining the value creation process as the link between resources and shareholder value.
The authors of the article offer a model of intellectual capital, which is composed of mainly three components: human capital, structural capital (organisational capital) BSC of is both a strategic approach and a performance management system that allows organisations to translate their vision and strategy into tactical and operational management reality. Kaplan and Norton (1992) Skandia Navigator This model integrates the assumptions about intellectual capital that reflects the difference between the book and market value of a firm. Edvinsson and Malone (1997) Intellectual Capital Index This index tries to provide dispersed indices into a single index and to link changes in intellectual capital to changes in the market value of firms. Roos et al. (1997) Measuring model of intangible assets Measuring intellectual capital assets based on three families of intangible assets: external structure (brands, customer and supplier relations); internal structure (the organisation: management, legal structure, manual systems, attitudes, R&D, software); and individual competence (education, experience). Sveiby (1997Sveiby ( , 2001 Direct Intellectual Capital Method The focus of this method is to identify and evaluate each of the components of intellectual capital. SaintOnge (1996), Stewart (1997), Bontis (1998), Roos et al. (1997), Brinker (1998), Zéghal and Maaloul (2010) Human Resource Accounting This method reports the expenditures related to human resources as assets on the balance sheet, as opposed to the traditional accounting approach, which treats costs related to a company's human resources as expenses on the income statement that reduce profit. Stahle et al. (2011) BooktoMarket Ratio Intellectual capital is often defined as the difference between market and book value of a business. Edvinsson and Malone (1997) Tobin's Q This method has traditionally been used for predicting investment decisions. Tobin's Q is the ratio between the market value and replacement value of the same physical asset.
Luthy ( Pulic (1998Pulic ( , 2000 EVA EVA is perhaps the most recent method of organisational performance evaluation. Its focus is on maximisation of shareholder wealth. In other words, EVA is a measure of whether the intellectual capital of a firm has been effective or not. Obviously, EVA is a substitute metric for intellectual capital and provides accurate information about the effect of intellectual capital on firm performance (Ghosh, Mondal 2009). Janis et al. (2005), Stewart (1991) and relational capital (social capital). Intellectual capital is present in three dimensions of business or in one of these three dimensions: its staff (Human Resource Capital), its structures (Structure Capital) and its customers (Relational Capital). Studies by Bontis et al. (2000), Moon and Kym (2006), MartinezTorez (2006) and Hsu and Fang (2009) show that there exist interactions between the components of intellectual capital that lead to improving the performan ce of a company and, therefore, the value creation.

Structural capital features
Structural capital can be described as a bunch of knowledge owned by a respective enterprise and embracing corporate culture, information technology and explicit knowledge (Halim 2010;Kamukama et al. 2011). Some scientists in regards to structural capital accen tuate the importance of organisational capacity and skills (Hermans, Kauranen 2005;Martin de Castro et al. 2006;Jardon, Martos 2009). Jardon and Martos (2012) propo sed a model ( Fig. 1) of a competitive advantage, where organisational capabilities play an important role in a company's performance. Organisational capabilities are considered within the structural capital due to the fact, that they are maintained as skills of the respective enterprise. According to Jardon and Martos (2012), "When organi zational capability is formalized as part of the operation of the company, then becomes firm resource and can belong to structural capital. This resource combines a package of corporate resources, some lie in people and others in organization. However, when the process is sufficiently formalized, people can be replaceable within this capabili ty and therefore can be considered are source owned by the company, therefore structural capital. When the process is less structured, the resources package has not a specific use, and then this package can be considered organizatio nal capability but is not structural capital, because it is not company asset. Capabilities do not belong to company as are source until they are updated to performance or until they are formalized to be always used in the same way in the process of obtaining performance. The formalization of a process belongs to the company and in that sense the company is able to do it". From the empirical model of Jardon and Martos (2012), it can be observed that special attention is given to resources. Every enterprise has a certain amount of resources and they are needed in order to perform particular tasks. Authors divided resources into two main parts: tangible resources and intellectual capital, which is of an intangible origin. The resources are considered as a basis of organisational capa bilities: if resources are developed at a high effectiveness, this leads to a higher organisational capability. In addition to this, enterprises are faced with strategic factors deriving from the strongest points of organisational capabilities: they are creating a value, which evolves into the final value trans formed for a customer. Jardon and Martos (2012) accentuate that "external factors are key success factors of industry and territory". Basically, strategy of a respective enterprise determines and connects every variable in the model of competitive advantage. According to Jardon and Martos (2012), "when organizational capability is formalized as part of the operation of the company, then becomes firm resource and can belong to structural capital. This resour ce combines a package of corporate resources, some lie in people and others in organization".
Other authors (Zangoueinezhad, Moshabaki 2009) pre sented the structural capital model (Fig. 2) that influences competitive advantage, where information systems and content factors play an important role. Authors investigated and provided empirical evidence that information systems, which are a part of structural capital, and the content factors, which are elements of organisational capital, are signifi cantly related with competitive intelligence. The quantity of competitive intelligence successfully increases competitive advantage of a respective company. The impact of competiti ve advantage, according to Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki (2009) can be evaluated by using three elements: higher quality, lower costs and general insight.
According to Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki (2009), information systems in the conceptual model of structural capital can be described by internal operations and exter nal operations. Internal operations could be evaluated by using individual costs or revenues, problem solution time,  Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki (2009) reinforcement of planning, increase of prediction power, sharing of competitive intelligence data among departments and strength of decision making and risk taking. External operations, according to Zangoueinezhad and Moshabaki (2009), can be measured by using three main features, such as exchange of competitive intelligence data with external consultants, exchange of competitive intelligence data with suppliers and exchange of competitive intelligence data with customers. In addition to this, content factors can be explained as the sum of cultural and social intelligence. The main features of cultural intelligence could be explained by organisational structure and the culture of makefacilities, ability of entrepreneurship, having foresight leader, syste matic approach, obligation to goals of an organisation and want of feedback. Social intelligence could be described as the amount of collaboration and coordination, flexibility, facility to gain experience, preference of a customer for an employee and employee for a manager, learning from ot hers, conscious and creative staff, upgrading of skills and continuous education. Authors confirmed the existing model and it appeared that there is a positive relationship between structural capital and competitive advantage of a respective enterprise.

Relational capital features
Relational capital is found in every company, but it is not defined and measured. The impact of relational capital can be noticed only when relational capital disappears and does not function at all. No company can operate in isolation and is required to have a circle of specific groups of people, depending on the type and size of a company, such as the following: -clients -customers -consumers; -partners -suppliers -associates; -shareholders -proprietors -companions; -governmental institutions -financial institutionslegal (law) institutions; -competitors -rivals -contenders. According to Welbourne and Pardo del Val (2008), "re lational capital is based on developing, maintaining and nurturing highquality relationships with organizations, people or groups that influences on firm business". High quality relationships are the essential element of relational capital and the basic idea is to be able to form such organi sational culture that could help to reach this goal. The rules or guidelines derived from structural capital could help in determining the process of successful usage of relational capital.
Some authors (Drucker 1993;Smith 2007;Paiva, Goncalo 2008;Zangoueinezhad, Moshabaki 2009) accen tuate the importance of information sharing between par tners and associates. According to studies, conducted by authors, "the greater the amount of data exchanged between partners, the greater the possibility for mutual understan ding of each others' goals, which can lead to increased cooperation". It is rather hard to find the best method of communication, which could easily be implemented in eve ry enterprise. Nevertheless, it is essential that information communicated through electronic systems is accurate, right and precise. What is more, it is very important to be fast in communicating with partners, clients, suppliers, associates and other groups of people, with which an enterprise is in contact. If messages or requests are not accomplished on time or if there is always a lack of willingness to respond quickly to concerns raised, the relational capital starts de teriorating. The result of such behaviour could possibly lead to rejection by clients, customers and other groups of people. The expected outcome could be severe due to the domino effect, where every bad opinion generates the pull of bad opinions widely spread all over the region. The chain reaction spreading bad news usually is very fast and could lead to negative consequences.
The better understanding of relational capital can be gained through central dimensions. Johansson (2007) iden tified and classified central dimensions of relational capital (Fig. 3) related to analysts and classified relational capital throughout the value added perspective.
According to the picture (Fig. 3), relational capital can be classified into two main groups: relational capital of a company and relational capital of a customer. The values Fig. 3. Relational capital by central dimensions according to Johansson (2007)  generated through the relational capital are information and knowledge, trading businesses for the investment bank and other types of businesses. What is more, relational capital can be used productively for validating and justifying the conclusions, dealing with an uncertain situation, ambi guous information or with problems of information overf low. Also, building of relations is an advantage of relational capital. In addition to this, Johansson (2007) distinguishes information that has value added. The information should be provided in a timely manner and must be adjusted to its users, who require certain information or knowledge. It is also very important to provide specific tacit and explicit information and knowledge, which is exclusive in character. The author also emphasises the magnitude of innovations and expresses the opinion that value added information and knowledge should be novel. As a consequence, outcomes of the effective use of relational capital would manifest as competitive advantages leading to the top ratings. Due to this reason, a company becomes more profitable and this could turn into a longterm survival.

Creation of company's value addedthe intellectual capital model
Every organisation expects a minimum profit/performance from their stakeholders and some change in the "external environment", within which it operates. Given these para meters, each organisation has to decide on the strategy/ies and the organisational form that would enable the organi sation to operate in the external environment and earn the expected profit. Environmental conditions are subject to the strategic choice of organisations (Child 1972;Fruhan 1979) and a strategy is viewed as "a mediating force between the organization and its environment" (Mintzberg 1979: 25). Then, an organisation's strategy should mirror or reflect the most critical elements of its environment. Organisations that fail to structure properly to implement their strategies, or to fit the environmental conditions implied by these strategies, should find themselves at a relative disadvantage in exploiting their environments (Egeihoff 1982). Managers engage in a variety of activities designed to manipulate their environments in their favour (Hall 1991). A part of litera ture deals with the strategy development process (Porter 1979(Porter , 1985(Porter , 2008Ansoff 1988;Schroeder, Lahr 1990) to address the environmental needs.
Literature research suggests that the surrounding envi ronment can and should influence a strategy (Burns, Stalker 1961;Dess, Beard 1984;Hambrick 1983;Miller, Friesen 1984;Zaltman et al. 1973). Lawrence and Dyer (1983) ar gued that an organic structure is best suited to coping with or adapting to a turbulent environment. Mintzberg (1979) indicated that an organic structure, with its low degree of formality and high degree of information sharing and decentralisation, improves an organisation's flexibility and ability to adapt to continual environmental change.
A constraining external factor is the manner in which organizations gather and process information regarding their external environments (Daft, Macintosh 1981;Katz, Kahn 1978;Morgan 1986). For example, information about the environment, which is needed to determine whether a change is required in strategy or a structure is costly. Organisations with scanty resources may limit their infor mation collection activities. In addition, such information may be distorted by the nature of the sensory mechanisms already in place within the organisation (Miller 1989).
In today's fast changing environments, companies need to be innovative in order to sustain their market positions and competitive advantages (Bartlett, Ghoshal 2000;Chiesa 1999;Dunning 1994). Managers cope with changes in their firm's external environment through the choice of an appro priate structure and design of a matching strategy (Andrews 1971;Ansoff 1979;Schendel, Hofer 1979); thus, the strategic choices made by organisational managers are an impor tant aspect of the adaptation process (Child 1972;Galbraith 1973;Miles 1980;Perrow 1979).
The transformation of data into information, and the communication and storage of information in the organi sation (Galbraith 1973;Tushman, Nadler 1978). The con ceptual underpinning for an informationprocessing pers pective of contingency theory was suggested by Thompson (1967) and more elaborately developed by Galbraith (1969Galbraith ( , 1973Galbraith ( , 1977 and Tushman and Nadler (1978). Galbraith viewed organisations as having good structural fit when the informationprocessing capacities of an organisation's structure fit the information processing requirements of its environment and technology. A number of empirical studies have used some form of informationprocessing approach (Burns, Stalker 1961;Lawrence, Lorsch 1967;Duncan 1973;Van de Ven et al. 1976;Galbraith 1977;Tushman 1978).
The optimal strategystructure match would have a su perior performance when compared to other organisations in the same adaptive state. Chakravarthy (1982), "goodness of fit" theme was described by the proponents of the contin gency school of organisational behaviour (Scott 1987).
Organisational effectiveness was a function of the cor rectness and tightness of "fit" between the structure and processes of an organisation and of its environment (Burns, Stalker 1961;Dill 1958;Hage, Aiken 1970;Lawrence, Lorsch 1969;Lorsch, Morse 1974). According to these theorists, organisational adaptation was the process, by which or ganisational managers adjusted their scale of operations or structure to conform to the dictates of the immediate environment.
The identification of valuedriver elements in the intel lectual capital system and their subsequent management is seen as the key to value added (Pitelis 2009). The authors present the model of intellectual capital describing the system that uses intellectual capital resources to increase value added. The model (Fig. 4) of intellectual capital was composed by the authors from mostly three components: human capital, structural capital (organisational capital) and relational capital (social capital).
This model presented three main elements of value ad ded creation: Human Capital is defined as the combined knowledge, skill, innovativeness, and abilities of individual employees of a company to perform tasks at hand. It also includes the company's values, culture and philosophy. Structural Capital is the hardware, software, databases, or ganisational structure, patents, trademarks, and everything else of organisational capability that supports the producti vity of employees. In other words, everything that gets left behind at the office when employees go home. Customer capital (Relational Capital) is provided by structural capital, the relationships developed with key customers.
The link between the environment strategy process, organisational structure and performance has been chan ging over time. Firstly, Chandler (1962) indicated that strategy precedes structure because an increase in diver sification requires a new and more decentralised structure (Chandler School), called the multidivisional form (de centralised multidivisional structure is the solution to the problem of diversity management. Ansoff stated that "the strategy imposes operating requirements and, in turn, the administrative structure must provide the climate for meeting them" (Ansoff 1965: 7). Ansoff (1965) refered to operating, administrative and strategic decisions in orga nisations, Andrews affirmed that "corporate strategy must dominate the design of organization structure" (Andrews 1971: 543). Researchers like Chandler (1962), Burns and Stalker (1961), Lorsch and Allen (1973), Child (1974Child ( , 1975 Fig. 4. Value creation framework postulated that an organisation must align its structure to its strategy, which in turn has to be developed to suit the environment. This argument, whereby "structure follows strategy", has also been corroborated in many studies, not only in the United States (Amburgey, Dacin 1994;Ansoff 1965), but also in other countries (Channon 1973;Dyas, Thanheiser 1976;Andrews 1971). The strategystructure performance paradigm developed by Chandler (1962) and Scott (1973) has become a dominant paradigm in the stra tegic management literature. This paradigm suggests that a company adopts different strategies at different stages in its life cycle in order to meet growth and profit objectives. Many contingency studies have sought to define structures that are the best for implementation of certain strategies (Chandler 1962;Wrigley 1970;Pavan 1976;Channon 1973;Rumelt 1974;Dyas, Thanheiser 1976;Grinyer 1977;Brooke, Lee Remmers 1970;Stopford, Wells 1972;Hulbert, Brandt 1980;Kambil et al. 1997). The key feature of this stage is the intellectual capital measurement relationship as shown in Figure 4. The relationship is bidirectional, i.e. the envi ronment determines the strategy, which in turn determi nes the organisational structure, or conversely, a company creates its internal structure based on internal resources. The authors support this bidirectional approach, but state that the market structure is a primary factor affecting the profitability of a corporate strategy as this corresponds to the empirical work by Christensen and Montgomery (1981), Bettis (1981), and Rumelt (1982).

Structural and relational capital overlaps in the process of value creation
There is a concept that considers structural and relational capital as the main elements in creation of the competitive advantage (Kamukama et al. 2011;Jardon, Martos 2012). A strong structural organisational chain implemented in a respective company can make an immense difference while competitors usually do not have it or just are in the process of implementing it. The same logic is adapted for relational capital. There are companies, which have implemented a strong and powerful network of communications. Such companies are usually very far from their competitors and gain significant amount of advantage and benefits. A widely developed network of communications helps to reduce time and production costs, which leads to a bigger portion of value added generated by such enterprise.
Structural capital itself is the amount of knowledge, which is transformed into procedures, processes and rou tines. The process of intangible variables conversion into documents also includes and strictly defines the culture of every enterprise. In this case, structural capital is closely connected with relational capital as the communication of employees depends on procedures implemented in that particular company. The culture of cooperation and communication derives from guidelines accommodated in the procedural documentation. Usually, there are res trictions and penalties if an employee brakes the rules. According to Wilkinson (1999), some enterprises provide regulations for employees in order to improve communi cation and even the working environment. Jardon and Martos (2012) conducted an empirical re search and revealed the main elements of structural and relational capital. According to them, structural capital can be evaluated through market knowledge, teamwork, internal communication, corporate culture, processes and product technologies. In addition, relational capital can be measured using variables, such as the attitude toward cooperation and partnerships of the company, distribu tion network, corporate image, type of distribution chan nels, the direct relationship with end customers, type of customers and types of providers. The results revealed that structural capital increases relational capital and this can be explained by a learning process, which is essential in order to compete within modern markets. The need to adapt to changes within markets leads to implementing technologies, which can help to enter new markets. As a result, strong communication skills are needed to impro ve relationships with clients, suppliers, service providers, governmental institutions and financial organisations. According to Jardon and Martos (2012), "intellectual capital of people (human capital) creates structural capital (intellectual capital within an organisation) and structural capital creates relational capital (intellectual capital with the environment)".

Measuring of intellectual capital and information communication technologies
As knowledge is invisible, its creation and use are hardly measureable. Nonetheless, investments in ICT generate many valuable outputs (brand, knowhow, patents, etc.). Value generated by knowledge will probably have a time lag (longterm) and will not always have an instant impact on profit (shortterm). Using this model (Fig. 5), we can des cribe the methodology of our evaluation model. Promoting investments into ICT and evaluating company value. At the begining the investment made by company into ICT must be calculated, comparing to abnormal revenue flow generated by ICT and intangible value created.
This model helps to describe the methodology used by the authors of the paper to design a quantitative evaluation model. The current quantitative model (Fig. 5) concentrates on external and internal reporting, including Internet sta tistics, investment analysis and methods for reporting the nonfinancial value of intangibles. The authors present the keydrivers that help to evaluate necessary internal inves tments and control results ( Table 3). The table is built accor ding to empirical researches conducted by various scientists and researchers. The basis of value creation is information and its use. Also, good quality information plays an essential part in value creation.
Based on keydrivers, the authors present different approach to value creation relationship, mainly focusing on overlapping dimensions -External Structure, Internal Structure and Social Capital. Authors prepared and classi fied the table according to the empirical researches conduc ted by Rodov and Leliaert (2002), Kennedy (1998), Cricelli, Greco and Grimaldi (2014). Table 4 reveals the main factors for intangible assets that generate value added. The assets  Codifying and reusing information, procedures and routines in order to increase effectiveness of management Alvesson and Karreman (2001) Investments in KM (Knowledge Management) storage activities A codification strategy emphasising behavioural control. The purpose of this strategy is to provide reliable codified information in order to ease decision making Hansen et al. (1999) Innovation as path dependent Investments in innovation and research and development enables the company to create new and improved products or services Nelson and Winter (1982), Alexy et al.
Company's stock of knowledge Knowledge tie indicates, which knowledge elements may combine into useful elements. Useful combinations lead to fruitful strategies and do not depend of the researchers who create and implement them Wang et al. (2014) Knowledge network Effectiveness of a researcher (employee or employer) with knowledge elements out of all knowledge elements Wang et al. (2014)  are classified into three broad groups: external structure, internal structure and social capital.

Conclusions
Value creation has been a concern for many years and com panies have always been trying to find out the best ways for its improvement. Authors believe that the process of value creation must be perceived through intellectual capital, and such concept could use more efficient integration of industrialisation elements into a corporate strategy. In the era of information and knowledge, effective use of intel lectual capital is the most important factor that determines the success of a business. The traditional point of view has changed and companies have shifted their focus from in vestments into tangible assets to investment in intangibles. Intellectual capital is considered to be an intangible with human capital, structural capital, and customer capital as its components. The authors proposed a model of value creation, which presents three main elements pertaining to creation of value added. Nevertheless, it is strongly recom mended that the model would be empirically tested and improved.
The proposal of empirical research could be developed further as the authors also created a list of factors and value drivers, which can be evaluated and assessed by various experts or respondents of a chosen target group. The em pirical research would be helpful in order to determine and set aside value drivers that have no significant influence on the value added of a company.