58 The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist Human Capital Matt Barney Motorola New techniques that value intangible assets are becoming increasingly prominent in finance, HR and government regulator circles (Lev, 2001). Employee contributions are a key missing asset in traditional financial val- uation information. Historically, I-O psychologists have used utility analy- sis to retrospectively determine the financial value of interventions (e.g. Raju, Burke, & Normand, 1990). However, these approaches have had lim- ited success (Latham & Whyte, 1994). Utility analysis-based valuations have had both technical and social problems. Technically, it has been diffi- cult to validly estimate the standard deviation of performance in dollars. Socially, executives don’t always believe the results, and sometimes even feel less convinced about intervention efficacy after reviewing utility esti- mates (Latham & Whyte, 1994). Together this has stopped utility techniques from being adopted widely in organizations. It might be surprising to those of us with a psychological education that a solution could be emerging from outside our discipline. Finance is start- ing to acknowledge the gaps between traditional accounting practices, mar- ket capitalization, and asset values (Lev, 2001). Investors for a long time have been valuing stock shares beyond the book value (i.e., physical and financial assets) of the companies (Lev, 2001). Take a look at your favorite securities portfolio, and you’ll note that in spite of the recent stock market deflation, many stocks are still trading significantly above what their tangi- ble assets are worth. This is because markets realize that intangibles help predict what the future cash flows will be worth (Lev, 2001). Empirical evi- dence and theory increasingly suggest that stock-market wealth creation involves optimally mixing people, technology, and physical assets as they perform together in combination to produce strategic goals (Becker & Huselid, 1998; Boudreau & Ramstad, 1997; DiFrancesco & Berman, 2000; Huselid 1995; Lev, 2001; Provo, 2000; ). Commonalities between the approaches proposed to manage human intangibles seem to be emerging. I’m happy to say that it appears that they may be fruitful in overcoming both technical and social problems with tra- ditional utility analysis approaches. For example, the “HC BRidge™” (Boudreau & Ramstad, 1997; Boudreau, Dunford, & Ramstad 2001) and “Human Capital Asset Manage- ment (HCAM™)” (DiFrancesco & Berman, 2000) models consider the strate- gic alignment of employees in the value chain. The value chain is the