The various measurement systems that have been developed for internal management and track­ing of IC, discussed in Chapter 2, have been used in some cases to externally report on IC. This was made through incorporating IC supplements to the annual reports. Skandia's Navigator and Sveiby's Intangible Assets Monitor have both been used for that purpose. The authors of the Bal­anced Scorecard (BSC) have also remarked that the BSC can be used for that purpose as well. Despite the attraction of these various models in providing a high degree of transparency as to the organization's operations, IC wealth and its management goals and procedures, they hardly pro­vide a common standard for IC reporting. This is because all these systems are situation specific, and are thus idiosyncratic to the needs, strategic objectives, and performance goals of the meas­uring unit. When it comes to the Navigator, for example, this is evident from the fact that com­panies in the Skandia group differ as to the indicators they monitor depending on the critical success factor identified for each business. The same is true of the BSC, where the authors repeat­edly stress that indicators should be devised in accordance with strategic goals. Thus, unless performance goals and strategic goals can be normalized across industries and companies, it is hard to see how these measurement models can be used for IC reporting.

The concept and practice of developing performance measures provides a firm basis for the development of IC reporting models, provided standard performance goals that are common within and across industries can be identified. This is the basis of the IC reporting model that I developed and present at the end of this chapter. But for now, let's look at the various attempts in the United States and around the globe to develop formulae, indicators, and systems to report on IC. A nonexhaustive list of examples is presented.