The role of intellectual capital management in enhancing productivity in Italian courts

Purpose This article addresses the persistent “how” gap in public sector intellectual capital (IC) research. Moving beyond cataloguing IC components, it investigates how IC is mobilized and reconfigured within complex knowledge-intensive public organizations. Using Italian courts under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) as a critical case, it analyzes Collective Intelligence (CI) mechanisms as the essential mediators that transform static IC into dynamic, performance-enhancing capabilities. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory multiple-case study was conducted across three courts in Sardinia. Data from organizational documents and 49 semi-structured interviews with judges, administrators and lawyers were analyzed through a hybrid inductive-deductive approach, framed within the CI lens (Secundo et al., 2016). This method traced the process of IC reconfiguration under pressure of reform. Findings The study reveals a vicious cycle: Human Capital (HC) instability (e.g. high turnover) erodes Structural Capital (SC) and cripples Relational Capital (RC), severely limiting productivity. Crucially, the effective use of NRRP resources depends on activating specific CI mechanisms, procedural coordination, relational bridging and cognitive integration. These mechanisms orchestrate the interaction between HC, SC and RC, determining whether reform leads to adaptation or stagnation. Practical implications The findings provide a contextualized diagnostic tool for court managers. A key recommendation is to sequence interventions (e.g. stabilize HC before investing in complex SC) and leverage units like the “Ufficio per il Processo” (UPP) as explicit CI catalysts to foster IC governance within professional bureaucracies. Originality/value The article contributes to IC theory by: (1) reconceptualizing IC in public professional bureaucracies as a dynamic, configurational system where value emerges from interaction; (2) theorizing external reform mandate that triggers and shapes CI processes, thereby contextually refining Secundo et al.’s (2016) framework by specifying institutional pressure as a contingent catalyst for CI activation and (3) developing a process model of IC mobilization that is theoretically transferable to other justice systems and knowledge-intensive public organizations undergoing major reform. The study therefore provides a CI-mediation model that explains how institutional pressure initiates and guides the reconfiguration of IC in professional public bureaucracies.