Michael D. Moberly    July 19, 2010

I research and write (produce) the ’Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ to provide insights and sometimes alternative views about protecting, managing, and delivering value from intangible assets.  My blog is directed primarily to company management teams, boards, entrepreneurs, researchers, and employees.  In that sense, each blog post, while sometimes inspired by the the work of others, is conceived and written in a respectful manner absent the influence of others.  Today’s post however, may appear to some, as constituting a deviation from those principles.

For example, this past week I had the pleasure (and enjoyment) of participating in and learning from a two and one half day seminar hosted by the American Society for Industrial Security International titled, ‘Organizational Resilience: Security, Preparedness and Continuity Management Systems - Requirements And Guidance For Use’.

Without equivocation, I can say my attendance/participation in the seminar was well worth my time and expense, especially in the sense of, upon completion of the seminar, being, quite literally, on the leading edge, of what I and others believe, particularly Dr. Marc Siegel, the seminars’ principle instructor, will be the standards’ relatively rapid rise in acceptance and integration by U.S. companies.

The program itself was appropriately framed by Siegel as encompassing a ’comprehensive management systems approach for the prevention, protection, preparedness, response, mitigation, continuity, and recovery for disruptive incidents resulting in emergency, crisis, or disaster’.  Given that my business and professional interests focus almost exclusively on issues related to intangible assets and intellectual property, it was important too me that I be able to adapt much of the seminars’ content, i.e., the standards themselves, to be applicable to intangibles and IP.  

After all, its an economic fact - business reality that 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and future wealth creation today lie in - are directly related to intangible assets.  Thus, a seminar on organizational resilience must fully address intangible assets.  While the seminar produced many practical deliverables to attendees, Siegel clearly and consistently recognized how essential it was to convey the new standard embody intangible assets, not solely physical-tangible assets. 

As I pointed out in my July 15th post, the requirements and guidance (accompanying the organization resilience standard), particularly as conveyed through the experienced and global eyes of Dr. Siegel, is not merely a warmed over version of (conventional-traditional) business continuity and contingency planning which still retains, in many instances, a framework and overall approach that is more reactive than proactive.

Whereas organization resilience, as conveyed in the standard itself, as well as in principle and practice, is embedded with a singularly proactive mantra, especially in terms of its approach and execution through a ‘management system’.

To be sure, the recent and on-going challenges experienced by BP, Massey Coal, Toyota, and Johnson and Johnson, and others, are but a few examples of the increasingly essential role in which a properly designed and executed organization resilience program (that encompass the requirements and guidance noted in the Standard) would have likely made a significant difference not only in the disruptive event itself (that adversely affected each company) but, how the companies response following the event. 

It now seems self-evident that an organizations’ ability to quickly, efficiently, and effectively adapt to a change, whether they be changes in policy, market forces, environmental factors, and/or disruptive events (i.e., natural, intentional, or unintentional) by implementing adaptive and proactive strategies that are recovery oriented, can not be dismissed out of hand.

In todays global business environment in which risks are very much asymmetric and ‘coming at your company 24/7′, taking time to objectively examine the benefits of the organizational resilience standard and reflecting on your company’s organizational resilience posture, can indeed, be a worthy use of time for any management team, board, and their respective stakeholders.

It is in this regard, that I encourage readers of this blog to give strong consideration to pursuing this organizational resilence seminar and closely following the work of Dr. Siegel and ASIS International on this necessary and worthy endeavor.

 The ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ is researched and written by Mr. Moberly to provide insights and additional views for company management teams, boards, and employees to aid in identifying, assessing, valuing, protecting, and profiting from their intangible assets.  I welcome and respect your comments and perspectives at m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Michael D. Moberly   October 24, 2008

Some decision makers in SME’s (small, medium enterprises) and SMM’s (small, medium multinationals) find (a.) the phrase ‘knowledge-based economy’, and (b.) contemporary economists’ view that 75+% of most companies’ value, sources of revenue, sustainability, and future wealth lie in - are directly linked to intangible assets to be more cliche’ than reality and more relevant to Fortune 500 types of companies’ perceived to be rich in intellectual property, know how, and R&D.

Frankly, I don’t share that reality, but do advocate this reality; unless and until c-suites, D&O’s, shareholders, and investors in SME’s and SMM’s begin to practice (a.) more consistent management, stewardship, and oversight (to sustain control, use, ownership, and value) of their intangible assets, and (b.) recognize (give credence to) practical strategies to leverage and exploit the ‘veritable goldmines of un-acknowledged and unutilized intangible assets’, (Kenan Patrick Jarboe) such perceptions will likely persist.  The result will be tremendous unrealized value being left ’on the table’ untouched and available for others (competitors, adversaries, acquisitions) to capture and exploit!

In respectful defense of SME and SMM decision makers, many do not, as yet, have the means or perhaps inclination (internally) to turn (their) intangible assets into potentially revenue generating assets.  In addition, business decision makers are generally realists, that is, they recognize that before embarking on an initiative such as this, three things, at minimum, must be in place (up front) before they take the time and devote the resources to identifying, unraveling, assessing, accounting for, and ultimately disclosing their intangible assets:

1. incentives, i.e., specific tax advantages and direct (immediate) financial inducements, etc., and/or

2. mandates by regulatory agencies (every company begins doing it), and

3. practical - relevant - useable training, i.e. having a strong internal familiarity with intangibles and how to identify, unravel, assess, leverage, and exploit (maximize and extract value from) them.

While the parameters of #1 and #2 would require (federal, state) legislative action, #3 is essentially independant.  That is to say, forward looking - forward thinking c-suites should be obliged, on a fiduciary plain, by their boards, stakeholders, and business units, etc., to proceed now toward achieving a level of familiarity with intangible assets that enables them to regularly (at will) engage their companies’ intangibles through effective stewardship, oversight, management, and monitoring to maximize and extract as much value as possible.

Michael D. Moberly       June 4, 2008

There are many different views about what it takes to sustain a successful launch-commercialization of a new company, its ideas or products.

Obviously, having a very commercializable product and sufficient capital to execute a well researched business plan and marketing strategy represent some traditional ingredients necessary for most successful launches.

An often overlooked - underestimated ingredient to sustaining a successful business-idea launch though is recognizing that:

     75+% of the value, sources of revenue, and future wealth creation of the launching company will likely evolve from intertwined combinations of intangible assets, intellectual property, specialized proprietary know how and competitive advantages and brand integrity!

But, unlike patents, trademarks, and/or copyrights, the USPTO does not issue, to the launching company, a certificate that says, these are your intangible assets, proprietary know how, trade secrets, competitive advantages, and brand integrity.

Instead, the responsibility for recognizing those assets exist and unraveling how they individually - collectively contribute to - convert as value, revenue, and future wealth lie solely with the launching companies’ decision makers, as does protecting, preserving, monitoring (e.g., sustaining control, use, ownership) and effectively exploiting and/or leveraging the assets’ value.

Today’s hyper-competitive go fast, go hard, go global business environment may not always leave sufficient time for decision makers to reflect on and/or budget for these important ingredients.  They are, nevertheless, instrumental in the sustainability of successful launches.  Continuing to hedge (neglect) the assets essential maintenance (e.g., protect, preserve, monitor their use, ownership, and value) can cause risk-threat probabilities to become inevitabilities in which complete or partial (asset) value erosion-dilution is likely to occur, which in turn, creates parameters-boundaries to a companies’ economic-competitive position capabilities and potential.

 Michael D. Moberly     May 30, 2008

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled (February, 2008) that the use of protected trade secret information by a former employee who had memorized it during his employment violated the state’s trade secret law.  (Al Minor & Assoc., Inc. v. Martin, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-292).

The Court held that the use of trade secret information does not lose its character as a trade secret (under USTA) merely because a former employee memorized it rather than writing it down or copying it in some other tangible medium.

For professionals charged with protecting and monitoring trade secrets and other proprietary information and know how, this ruling draws attention to many issues, three of which are:

1. Elevates the necessity for literally unraveling the origins and ownership of ideas and initiatives as part of due diligence, especially mergers and acquisitions, venture capital investments in early stage companies, corporate-university research alliances, etc., in which intangible assets, intellectual property, proprietary know how and competitive advantages are always in play and part of the deal.

2. Elevates the importance of conducting thorough employee exit interviews, especially for employees who have access to and/or hold proprietary - competitive advantage information (trade secrets).

3. Elevates the importance of (credence given to) non-disclosure agreements and non-compete clauses in employment contracts insofar as ensuring those agreements are routinely reviewed and updtated with specific ‘follow-up’ procedures.

In summary, the Ohio Supreme Court said it is the information that is protected by the USTA, regardless of the manner, mode, or form in which it is stored - whether on paper, in a computer, in one’s memory, or in any other medium.

To be sure, this ruling will have significant impact on how we set about to ‘protect, preserve, and monitor the use and value of (valuable) proprietary information.