Considering the human factor in the organization and improvement of human resources has been considered in the field of human resources management. The performance of an employee depends on his motivation. Despite the strong employees with high ability, if no motivation exists, it reduces their efficiency. Scientists have engaged in the issue since the early 1960s (Naeli, 2010, 12). Checking the motivation is to realize why people do things a certain way and basically what their activities will cause (Naeli, 2010, 12).

Knowledge is the most important asset in today's economy, and has been replaced with physical and financial capital (Qelich Khani, 2006). During the industrial age, the final cost of the assets, equipment, and raw materials were necessary for trade success, but the effective use of intellectual property in the information age is usually effective in the success or failure of a collection. So managers need to be able to measure the effect of efforts on the performance of their organization's knowledge management. Most of scientific knowledge management indicators focused to measure intellectual capital, knowledge management outputs assumed to be effective on intellectual capital. Intellectual Capital is responsible for investment management of organization. Today, organizations are faced with an environment characterized by increasing complexity, globalization and dynamic. Therefore, organizations are facing new challenges to continuity and establish themselves and going out of this challenge requires more attention to developing and strengthening the skills and innate abilities that this is done through intellectual capital which their organizations use them to achieve better performance in the world of business (Pahlavanyan, 2012). By applying knowledge management in banks and electronic banking, banks need to invest more attention in the field of intellectual capital. Therefore, the study seeks to answer the question that what is the appropriate model for IC of staff?

RESEARCH BACKGROUND:

The concept of intellectual capital always is vague and different definitions of the concept have been used for the interpretation of such terms. Many tend to have terms such as asserts, resources or performance triggers instead of the word “capital’ and replace the word ‘intellectual” with “intangible” based on knowledge or non-financial. Some professions (financial accounting and legal professions) have provided different definitions of non-financial fixed assets that have no physical and objective existence (Dastgir et al., 2009). The term "intellectual capital" was first raised by John Kenneth Galbraytder in 1969. Earlier, Peter Drucker used "knowledge workers". In a simple definition, intellectual capital is the difference between the market value and the value of the assets of a company. According to this definition, intellectual capital is important in two respects. One, within the organization, with the aim of better allocation of resources to increase efficiency and minimize the costs of the organization. The other, external, which is aimed at making available information to forecast the organization's existing investments and potential future growth and long-term planning (Mehrmanesh and Amini, 30, 2012). Stewart believes that intellectual capital is a set of knowledge, information, intellectual property, experience, competence and organizational learning that can be used to create wealth. The intellectual capital of all employees takes organizational knowledge and skills to create added value and lead to sustained competitive advantage (Golichli et al., 2006, 147). Bontis knows intellectual capital as a collection of intangible assets (resources, abilities, competition) that achieved by organizational performance and value creation (Bontis, 1998). Odinson and Malone defined intellectual capital as "Information and knowledge applied to work to create value".

Hardwar in his remarks and papers knows intellectual capital and intangible assets of a company as the most valuable and the most important sources of it. According to him, due to the specific characteristics of these assets, i.e. the intellectual resources of the company, it is exclusive and unique and is not copy able or duplication and therefore they are valuable for companies that can provide competitive advantages for the company. Intellectual capital and tangible assets has similarities in the potential for future cash flows over the path of excellence, but the features that differentiated intellectual capital from assets in brief are as follows: First intellectual assets are non-competitive assets. Unlike physical assets that perform a task that can only be used especially at a specific time, intellectual property can be used simultaneously for several specific issues. For example, customer support system can support thousands of customers at a specific time. The abilities are one of the most important measures of physical intellectual property assets .Second, human capital and relational capital cannot become private property, but it must be shared between employees and customers and suppliers. Therefore, the growth of this type of property is in need of care and attention (Talukdar, 2008). Bontis knew intellectual capital consisted of three components: customer capital, structural capital and human capital (Bontis, 1998).

Figure1. Components of intellectual capital

When the researches of intellectual capital are examined, it appears that more models of intellectual capital have tried to consider three dimensions for intellectual capital: human, customer and structure with a series of common characteristics (Mar, 2005). In fact, human capital represents the knowledge of an organization (Breaking, 1996). Chen et al (2004) also discuss human capital as the basis of intellectual capital which refers to factors such as knowledge, skills, capabilities and attitudes of staff, resulting in improved performance that consumers are willing to pay for it and make a profit for company. Although employees in a learning organization are considered as the most important asset, they are not owned by the organization. In general, slave era is over, but still a hot debate is whether the new knowledge is created by employees of the organization or not. Human capital has led the organization to a large extent rely on their employees' knowledge and skills to generate income and growth, and improve efficiency and productivity (Sveiby, 1997). The customer capital means all the knowledge learned from the relationships of an organization with its environment, including customers, suppliers, and the scientific community and so on. According to Chen, the most important part of a relationship capital is customer capital, because the success of an organization depends on its customer capital (Chu, 2003).

Brookings (1996) points out customer, customer loyalty and distribution channels in the property market that are associated with the capital. As well, Stewart (1997) states that the customer capital is market information for attracting and retaining customers. New definitions have developed the concept of customer capital investment to a relationship capital, including the knowledge in all relationships with customers, competitors, suppliers, trade associations or government (Bontis, 1999, 437). Also, Chen et al (2004) classified the customer's investment as marketing capabilities, the severity of the market, and customer loyalty. In general, customer capital is a bridge and intermediary in the process of intellectual capital and is the main determinant in the transformation of intellectual capital to the market value and, consequently, the organization's business performance. Thus, growth of customer funds depends on human capital support and structural capital (Chen et al., 124, 2004).

Capital structure is defined as including all non-human repositories of knowledge in the organization, which includes databases, organizational charts, process instructions, strategy and everything that it gives more value of tangible assets. (Haji Karimi et al., 2009).

Pondet (2000) knew organizational capital as belonging to an organization's institutional knowledge stored in databases, procedures, and so on. Structural capital consists of all non-human reservoirs of knowledge that includes databases, organizational charts, procedures, strategies, action plans and whatever its value to the organization is higher than its material value (Ross et al., 1997). According to Chen et al (2004), Structural capital can be more clearly classified as corporate culture, organizational learning, operational processes and information systems. According to Bontis (1998), if an organization has weak systems and work procedures, the general intellectual capital will not be achieved to its maximum potential. However, organizations with a strong capital structure will have a supportive culture that allows people to do new things, to fail and learn. Structural capital and human capital help organizations by interacting with each other that form, develop and operate harmonious enterprise customers (Chen et al., 120, 2004).

In general, we can say that human capital is the basic component of intellectual capital, and other two capitals are functions of human capital. In fact, grow and expand is limited without human capital.

METHODOLOGY:

This study is applied and descriptive - survey in nature that concepts related to factors in the implementation of the strategy were gathered through the library, reading books, articles and available theses in this field. The symbolic validity has been used to determine the validity of the questionnaire. Its reliability was calculated by Cronbach alpha coefficient using SPSS software. Cronbach alpha values was 0.95, and the reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed because it was greater than 0.7. The study includes 1400 staffs of Dey Bank.

The sample size was determined based on Korjsi-Morgan table. 302 members have been selected as the sample. In analyzing the data, structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL software have been used to identify factors influencing the intellectual capital model.

DATA ANALYSIS:

Ratio test was used to measure Staff intellectual capital. Ratio test is different at the confidence level 0.95 for the samples. As a result, the assumption of the equality of intellectual capital in the two groups is 0.50; the intellectual capital in the Group 1 is greater than Group 2, because the observed ratio in group 1 and group 2 are 0.75 and 0.25, respectively. In addition, the difference is significant because the amount sig (p-value) is 0.002 and less than 0.05 (significance level). Thus it can be stated that the intellectual capital of Dey bank officers is higher than average.

Using confirmatory factor analysis, factors influencing the intellectual capital have been identified which include: human factors, organizational factors, relationship factors, structural factors, and customer factors. The effect of exogenous latent variables (intellectual capital) is on the endogenous latent variables (human factors, organizational, communication, structure and customer).

Table1. The effect of exogenous latent variables on the endogenous latent variables

Direction	Parameter estimate	Standardized parameters B	t
The effective factors on intellectual capital	Parameter estimate	Standardized parameters B	t
Human factors	1.23	1.11	9.23
Organizational factors	1.07	0.92	10.01
Communication factors	0.98	1.12	8.02
Structural factors	0.93	1.01	8.43
Customer factors	1.02	1.17	7.57

P-value suggests that the effect of factors influencing the intellectual capital on human, organization, communication, structure, and customer is significant at the confidence level of 95%.

Goodness of fit indices shows confirmatory factor analysis of the results that represents a good fit with the observed data. In other words, the definition of the factors influencing the intellectual capital with five components in this study is corresponding with data.

Table2. Goodness of fit indices for intellectual capital

Goodness of fit indices	mean error root of square approximation	Significant level	Degree of freedom	Square score
0.99	0.000	0.012	301	9556.11

The most important fit statistic is chi square. This statistic measures the difference between observed and predicted matrix. Lack of significance shows a fit of model with the data. Values less than 0.05 are for root index of the approximation mean error and values above 0.9 are for goodness of fit and adjusted index goodness of fit will be considered with the observed pattern matching data in the criteria. Therefore, the IC model has confirmed with 5 factors. Therefore appropriate model is shown as below.

CONCLUSION:

Binomial test (relative), factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to reply the research questions. To address this research question, binomial test (ratio) was used. For this reason, people who were ‘completely agree” and “agree” have been gathered in one group (Group 1) and those who were “disagree” and “completely disagree” have been gathered in one group (group 2) and cut-off point to separate the two groups was considered as 3 that related to the option “ I have no idea”. The results suggest that the ratio test with 0.95 of probability is different between the two society groups. As a result, assuming the equity of components of intellectual capital at a 0.5 percent is rejected and as the intellectual capital of second group is more than the first group, the intellectual capital of Dey bank staff will be higher than average. To design and demonstrate the pattern of intellectual capital, research has developed a questionnaire with 64 items that measure the intellectual capital among Dey bank employees. The questionnaire is given in the form of a five-spectral scale (completely disagree, disagree, no idea, agree, and completely agree).

Factors were identified using confirmatory factor analysis. Five factors have special vectors larger than a factor, the first factor explained 15.322% of variance, the second factor explained 11.729, the third explained 12.713 percent, and fourth factor explained 12.528 percent, and fifth factor explained 12.190 percentage of variance. The cumulative variance was equal to 74.762 percent. This means that the five factors explain 74/762 percent of variance of the questions. The cumulative variance must be greater than 60 percent.

The results of goodness of fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit with the observed data. In other words, the definition of five components of the factors influencing the intellectual capital in this study is corresponding with data.

REFERENCES:

1. Galeichli, B., and Moshabbaki, A. (2006). The role of social capital in the creation of intellectual capital in the organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, No. 75, 147

2. Haji Karimi, A.A., and Bathayi, A. (2009). Intellectual capital management (strategic management of corporate-value content and applications). Bazargani Publications, Tehran

3. Dastgir, M., and Mohammadi, K. (2009). IC treasure unfailing organization. Tadbir, No. 214, pp. 28-344

4. Ghaleichli, B., Hejari, Z.A., Rahmanpour, L., Habibpour, A.V., and Yazdani, S. (2009). Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital Model (Case Study: Workers Welfare Bank). Vision of Management, No. 22, pp. 131-150

5. Mehrmanesh, H., and Amini, M. (2012). Intellectual Capital. Mahe Novin, No. 39, pp. 30-35

6. Bhartesh, K. R and Bandyopadhyay, A. K, (2005), Intellectual Capital: Concept and its Measurement, Finance India, 19 (4), 1365-1374

7. Bontis, N, (1998), Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models, management decision, 36(2).

8. Bontis, N, (1999), Managing Organizational Knowledge by Diagnosing Intellectual Capital: Farming and Advancing the State of the Field, International Journal of technology Management, 18 (5/6), 433-62

9. Bontis, N, (2000), CKO wanted- evangelical skills necessary: a review of the chief knowledge officer position, Knowledge and Process Managemet, 7(4).

10. Brooking, A, (1996), Intellectual capital: Core assets for the Third millennium Enterprise, London, Thomson Business Press.

11. Chen, J., Zhu,Z and Xie, H. Y, (2004), Measuring intellectual capital: a newmodel and empirical study, journal of intellectual capital, 5(1), 195-212.

12. Choi, B, (2003), An empirical investigation of KM styles and their

13. Kok, A, (2007), Intellectual Capital Management as Part of Knowledge Management Initiatives at Institutions of higher Learning, the Electronic journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 181-192.

14. Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N.C. and Edvinsson, L, (1997), Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, Macmillan, Basingtoke, Houndmills.

15. Sveiby, K.E, (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler.

16. Madanmohan, Rao, (2004), Charting a Course for Intellectual Capital Management, Knowledge Management, available at:

17. Sanchez, M, Paloma., Castrillo, Rocio and Elena, Susana, (2006), Intellectual capital management and Reporting in universities, Paper presented at the International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators. History and New Perspectives, Lugano 15-17, November 2006

18. www.destinationKM.com/articles/default.asp? Articleid=1114

Received on 17.02.2016 Modified on 12.03.2016

Asian J. Management. 2016; 7(3): 159-163.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2016.00024.X

NFI	NNFI	CFI	IFI	SAMR	Fitness index	Measuring model
0.926	0.949	0.950	0.950	0.0922	value	Measuring model
1.000	1.009	1.000	1.006	0.00142	value	Model of structural equations