Archive for February, 2016

War and Combat Intangibles In American Films

February 10th, 2016. Published under intangible assets, Vietnam War Combat Veterans. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 10, 2016 ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

Through the lens of the ‘it’s time we were asked project’ not an insignificant percentage of American films produced with a story line linkage to Vietnam War combat tend to do so by incorporating particular tracts which perhaps are intended to accommodate perceptions of generations removed focus groups, i.e.,
• a snap-shot-in-time portrayal of an observed and recorded act of extraordinary leadership and/or courage in which a soldier was subsequently honored, perhaps posthumously, with relevant citations and medals.
• a revelation of ‘what if’s and/or what should’s’ relative to a specific or series of political – military miscues, strategic – tactical misreads, cover-ups, and/or injurious fabrications, or misleading rationales or explanations.
• protests initiated by citizens (globally) particularly the United States against the Vietnam War which questioned key motivations-rationales for the U.S. government’s initiating – engaging the Vietnam War.
Of course, we recognize now that every (Vietnam War) revelation describing a strategic political-military misstep or misjudgment, was wholly without merit.

To be sure, by the time a new investigative revelation eventually sieved down to those engaged in combat in Vietnam, they were indeed disconcerting and frustrating to some. But, if my experience serves as an indicator, personnel consistently engaged in combat environs tended to be emotionally apolitical insofar as how the Vietnam War was being strategically – tactically prosecuted.

To do otherwise, i.e., exhibit a wholly anti-war posture, there was broad agreement amongst veteran combat personnel, could potentially draw one’s attention away from their combat (offensive-defensive) responsibilities and effectiveness, thereby putting themselves and others at risk. So, assuming an apolitical posture/attitude about the Vietnam War during the period one was engaged in combat was, for most, a necessary obligation because, among other things, there was no opportunity to merely ‘opt out’ or engage in protest absent significant consequences imposed by superiors, but particularly combat team members.
With this admission, it is certainly not the intent of ‘it’s time we were asked project’ to purposefully merge either in the recorded accounts of Vietnam War combat veterans’ unless the subject independently evolves at their will absent scripted influencers. Admittedly, of the combat veterans engaged for this project thus far, some have indeed expressed perspectives and opinions about one or more of the tracts described above.

Vietnam combat veterans interested in participating in and/or supporting the ‘it’s time we were asked’ project are encouraged to contact Mr. Moberly at m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Mr. Moberly is an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist and author of ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ published by Elsevier in 2014, m.moberly@kpstrat.com View Mr. Moberly’s videos on YouTube at ‘safeguarding intangible assets’ or his CNN and CNBC videos at his webpage http://kpstrat.com

Patents, Collections of Embedded Intangible Assets

February 9th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset training for management teams., IP strategy.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   February 9, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

Think about it. Is it not fair to say that a patent is, in many respects, an organized collection-arrangement of IA’s (intangible assets), i.e., intellectual and structural capital particularly, which have been systematically applied and ultimately embedded in creating something new, novel and/or unique?

Should the above characterization be reasonably accurate, which I believe it is, the key difference between an issued patent and intangible assets is the former can be framed and proudly hung on the wall of the holder’s choosing, while the contributing IA’s, in their non-physical state, are the actual, but uncommunicative enablers – underliers.

Frequently, much to my chagrin as an IA strategist and risk specialist, IP, patents particularly, represent the presumptive ‘brass ring’ which a significant percentage of technology transfer managers, researchers, inventors, and legal counsel set their sights and envision deriving streams of revenue and value as has been conveyed in most every conventional ‘IP 101’ class for the past 100+ years.

My experience, albeit largely confined to university research and RBSU’s, i.e., research based startups, suggest a significant percentage of IP (patent) players are unaccustomed to recognizing the presence of or the contributory role and value emanating from people generated IA’s.

I suspect this oversight attaches to the dominance of patent only strategies held by many companies and organizations coupled with the time honored perspective that an issued patent generally conveys singular (asset) development and ownership. However, the expenditure of time and cost associated with obtaining, maintaining, and defending a patent are escalating which influence the ‘patent only tract’, making it increasingly out-of-reach for many inventors, RBSU’s and the multitude of firms now marked by consistent innovation but absent deep pockets of investment resources.

In today’s increasingly aggressive, predatorial, and winner-take-all global business transaction and R&D environments, patent only tracts, in my view, are in constant states of risk to loss, devaluation, undermining, and/or infringement. Too, there is the widely held, but never-the-less mistaken assumption that an issued patent constitutes a deterrent to, or safe harbor from would be infringers, which it certainly is neither. Indeed, most research projects – products are vulnerable to (a.) becoming entangled-ensnared in various legal disputes and challenges, (b.) failures of effectively marketing, and/or (c.) resources being prematurely withdrawn to sustain the benefits of a patent.

Mr. Moberly is an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist and author of ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ published by Elsevier in 2014, m.moberly@kpstrat.com View Mr. Moberly’s videos on YouTube at ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’.

Marketing Intangible Assets To Skeptics

February 8th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset teaching and training., Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   February 8, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

Respectfully, one would think at this point, with it being a globally universal economic fact that 80+% of most company’s – organization’s value, sources of revenue, and building blocks for growth, sustainability, and profitability today evolve directly from IA’s (intangible assets) any challenge related to bringing management teams and boards to the ‘intangible asset’ table would be minimal.  That message still demands clarity today, i.e., explanation, confirmation, and demonstration of IA’s contributory role and value to company’s – organization’s insofar as achieving financial and competitive advantage benefits.

For IA strategists like myself, that challenge often lies in getting management teams and boards to recognize (a.) the IA’s their company/organization actually produces and possesses and (b.) the contributory roles (to value, revenue, competitive advantage, etc.) and (c.) providing sufficient rationale and guidance for taking action.

For a percentage of still skeptical – unconvinced management teams and boards (about IA’s) the all but assured benefits and competitive advantages accruing from their effective use-application is misinterpreted as not occurring until some distant point in the company’s – organization’s future.  IA strategic planning practiced by this strategist is presented-executed with a near term emphasis that minimizes any rationale to delay engaging one’s IA’s financially – competitively or be dismissive about or otherwise trivialize the benefits.

There are techniques applied in seminars and/or training to influence greater – broader (management team, board) receptivity to effectively applying their IA’s.  Two important techniques are (a.) ensuring management teams and boards recognize what IA’s are, and (b.) achieving sufficient operational familiarity to identify, unravel, assess, position and otherwise consistently use-exploit IA’s profitably and competitively.

This entails, among other things, developing a (more) coalescing approach that encourages more company – organization management teams and boards to engaged and act on their IA’s.  In other words, positioning IA’s for becoming routine action items on c-suite discussions and strategic planning agendas.

Mr. Moberly is an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist and author of ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ published by Elsevier in 2014, m.moberly@kpstrat.com View Mr. Moberly’s videos on YouTube at ‘safeguarding

Combat Intellectual Capital

February 5th, 2016. Published under Systemic Risk, Vietnam War Combat Veterans. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   February 5, 2016 ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

A proposition that influenced us to proceed further with the development of the ‘it’s time we were asked’ project stems from on-going frustrations we frequently discussed relative to defensive tactics (troop safety) applied in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters. An example of which has to do with the presumptive sophistication of anti-personnel devices developed-used by adversaries against military personnel (in Iraq and Afghanistan).  No comparison – relevance were made to comparables or the primordial anti-personnel devices used against combat troops in the Vietnam War, i.e., the variety of ways sharpened bamboo stakes and wire could be fashioned into very serious and deadly anti-personnel devices.

We understand, for perception and political reasons, it remains ‘verboten’ for senior administration officials to publically compare-contrast the insurgency rooted war in Vietnam to its comparables in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of counterinsurgency tactics and strategy and anti-personnel devices.

A quote widely attributed to Sir Winston Churchill summed up our frustrations rather well, i.e., “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  In this instance soldiers were, in many instances needlessly dying or being seriously and irreparably injured as a result of failing to learn from or ignoring the combat history of the Vietnam War.

Through our lens, there was an obvious absence of ‘lessons learned’ from the multitude of similar but needless misjudgments and misdiagnosis of tactics and strategy at the outset of the Vietnam War. In other words, we suspect, had any military personnel in any leadership capacity in 2003 asked any Vietnam War combat veteran three things to expect and prepare their combat troops defensively and offensively for, they would likely be…

  • ’booby traps’ of all types used in the Vietnam War, but a term/phrase nonsensically ‘upgraded’ to IED’s or improvised explosive devices for application to the Iraq and Afghanistan war…distinctions without differences.
  • it is going to be a very tough, long, frustrating, and ultimately dissatisfying endeavor insofar as winning hearts and minds.
  • significant tactical – strategic distinctions between the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam is terrain!

It’s worth noting following the April, 1996 plane crash in Croatia that killed Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and 34 other American business leaders embarked on a trade mission, the government compiled a 7,700 page document titled ‘lessons learned’. In my judgment, one of the most significant takeaways from that document was the fact that numerous civilian and military pilots had first hand and recent knowledge of the dangers and challenges associated with negotiating a landing at that particular Croatian airport facility, but whose experience went unnoticed and un-asked.

Vietnam combat veterans interested in participating in and/or supporting the ‘it’s time we were asked’  project are encouraged to contact Mr. Moberly at m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Mr. Moberly is an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist and author of ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ published by Elsevier in 2014, m.moberly@kpstrat.com View Mr. Moberly’s videos on YouTube at ‘safeguarding intangible assets’ or his CNN and CNBC videos at his webpage http://kpstrat.com

Intangibles Of Combat

February 4th, 2016. Published under intangible assets, Vietnam War Combat Veterans. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   February 4, 2016 ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

Since the withdraw of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam some 45+ years ago, there remains, in my judgment, insufficient contextual light shed on the consistent physical challenges and mental endurance of those directly tasked with engaging in combat. There are at least two generations of citizens who possess little, if any, exacting familiarity about the Vietnam War aside perhaps from observations – perceptions gleaned from films that often evolved from books, translated to screen plays and then ensconced in director’s dual assessment of presumptions about realism and box office draw.

Embedded within this of course, are various government investigative reports, cathartic memoirs (books) by government officials – military personnel who, among other things, were voices for the Vietnam war’s prosecution, i.e., analysis, policy, and/or strategy.  Too, there is an abundance of single author books which are inclined to describe particular incidents-circumstances which the author was likely to have been a participant and recognized for heroism and valor.  Many of these offerings we found, fell short of articulating the obscure and apolitical complexities and realities experienced by combat veteran’s over the course of their 365 day tour.  A high percentage of such realities encompassed physical, mental, and emotional endurance, luck, and experiential skills gleaned from emotionally taxing and unrelenting  (24/7) probability of instantaneous engagement in combat.

Of course, there were other bodies of work undertaken espousing an array of social, moral, and political agendas and investigative journalism, some of which contained insights from previously suppressed or classified documents-knowledge that had the benefit of including the inevitable ‘what shoulds’ and/or ‘what if’s’.  Too, these sources often raised new questions about (a.) the government’s rationale for engaging in the Vietnam War, (b.) war fighting strategies relative to deploying hundreds of thousands of military personnel to prosecute a war, 8,846 miles and 13 time zones away from St. Louis, Missouri, and (c.) a war that was largely rooted in Vietnam’s historic ineptness, corruption, and repetitive receptivity to being subject to multi-pronged and multi-faceted communist led insurgencies.

So, be assured, it is not the intent of this blog post, nor our ‘it’s time we were asked’ project, to lionize or demonize the Vietnam War, war in general, or combat in particular. Instead, through our ‘it’s time we were asked’ project we will be delivering (in open sources) many hundreds of unscripted, un-sequenced, and un-coached audio recordings – discussions with Vietnam War combat veterans. A key purpose of which is to bring much needed clarity about combat in war that reaches well beyond what have now become ubiquitous, but inquisitively hollow expressions, i.e., ‘thank you for your service’ or ‘welcome home’.

Vietnam combat veterans interested in participating in and/or supporting the ‘it’s time we were asked’  project are encourage to contact Mr. Moberly at m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Mr. Moberly is an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist and author of ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ published by Elsevier in 2014, m.moberly@kpstrat.com View Mr. Moberly’s videos on YouTube at ‘safeguarding intangible assets’ or his CNN and CNBC videos at his webpage http://kpstrat.com