Archive for 'Intangible asset strategy'

Intangible Asset Strategists and Consultants, A Message!

April 3rd, 2013. Published under Intangible asset strategy. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly    April 3, 2013    ‘A blog where attention span matters’.

Let’s accept the following as economic fact; we live, work, and conduct business transactions in an increasingly and irreversible knowledge-based global economy, where 70+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, sustainability, and profitability lie in – directly evolve from intangible assets!

Equally importantly, let’s also accept the business reality that the aforementioned economic fact has yet to become so self-intuitive to management teams, c-suites, and boards that they will instinctively recognize the necessity to engage in strong and consistent stewardship, oversight, and management of the intangible assets their company produces and/or acquires.

This makes all the more essential for intangible asset consultants and strategists to develop an understandable script, if you will, to help clients understand the various ways their company can elevate its value, add sources of revenue, and solidify its sustainability through better utilization of its intangible assets.  This can occur not just by recognizing intangibles assets and their relevance to business profitability and market space, but by taking affirmative steps to enhance, position, bundle, and exploit intangibles.

Developing such a script, according to Dale Furtwengler, an extraordinarily intuitive St Louis-based business strategist and author of ‘Pricing for Profit: How To Command Higher Prices For Your Products and Services’, is a critical component to increasing the probability business clients will pay a premium for effective outside counsel, i.e., intangible asset strategists’, that lead to practical, tactical, and strategic clarity insofar as identifying, unraveling, enhancing, positioning, exploiting, and managing intangible assets.

Thus, the more clarity decision makers achieve from consultants and strategists regarding intangible assets their company produces or acquires and are inevitably embedded in the products and/or services they produce will (a.) lead to better – more informed decisions about the necessity to engage an intangible asset strategist, and (b.) reduce the probability that particular buying decision will be postponed.

For that to occur however, a strategists – consultants ‘script’, Mr. Furtwengler argues, and I agree, must clearly and convincingly articulate how to calculate the monetary value of the intrinsic value which a consultants’ services and/or offerings will actually provide. The premise is, clients will pay a premium for value they understand and can rapidly apply.

Usually, Mr. Furtwengler points out, when prospective buyers (of intangible asset strategists’ services, for example) find themselves unable to distinguish one strategist’s services/offerings from others, they ask about pricing.  That, of course often translates as an inability to quantify the value of what may appear, to prospective clients, as competing services and/or offerings because, rather unfortunately, pricing (fees) tends to be the primary form of measurement business decision makers understand insofar as distinguishing competing offerings – services.

Furtwengler effectively argues throughout his book that client’s expect to pay more to get more, but only, if ‘getting more’ has (recognizable and actionable) value to them.  So, an intangible asset strategists’ ability to command higher fees lies solely with their ability to articulate (i.e., their script) that greater value, and how to monetize that greater value to benefit clients and their respective needs.

That said, Furtwengler recognizes that independent consultants/strategists site numerous reasons and/or rationales why they are resistant to raising their fees – prices, i.e.,

  • they don’t possess the brand/name awareness of larger (competing) full service consulting firms.
  • their clients only express concern – care about pricing/fees.
  • our competitors won’t raise their fees – prices, so we can’t.
  • we will lose sales and market share if we raise our fees.

As a counter to those ill-fated rationales, Furtwengler describes six ‘value propositions’ which are what prospective buyers of consulting services really value which I have extrapolated to intangible asset strategists and consultants, i.e.,

  1. Innovative Image…that will accrue by purchasing intangible asset services that represent a buyer’s desire to elevate their (company) image by being associated with and being able to purchase such specialized ‘leading edge’ services.
  2. Integrity…reduces the amount of time required for a prospective client to make a buying decision when they’re sure the consultant/strategist is trustworthy?
  3. Service and Dependability…do it right the first time so clients do not lose time later for expensive remediation or complete do-overs.
  4. Knowledgeable spokespersons…can also constitute time savings, i.e., a consultant/strategist who knows their services extremely well and can clearly and understandably articulate those services on a ‘what fits best basis’ to help prospective clients recognize what they really want, need and value.
  5. Speed and Convenience…time savings and quick service.
  6. Friendliness…a genuinely friendly image conveyed to prospective clients.

I applaud Furtwengler for not even including in his book the conventional practice of framing service ‘pitches’ that emphasize fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).  For some intangible asset consultants and strategists, it’s difficult to resist utilizing – resorting to FUD factors, especially when a prospective client expresses a dismissive attitude about ‘all things intangible’.

If intangible asset strategists – consultants commence an engagement meeting with a strong narrative (script) that is not reliant on highly subjective FUD elements, and instead, includes a…

  • forward looking focus on the importance of providing strong methodologies for…

the stewardship, oversight, and management of intangible assets, and

  • sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring (asset) value, materiality, sustainability, and risk

…the probability of experiencing consistent enterprise-wide success increases substantially!

Each blog post is researched and written by me with the genuine intent they serve as a useful and respectful medium to elevate awareness and appreciation for intangible assets throughout the global business community.   Most of my posts focus on issues related to identifying, unraveling, and sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring asset value, materiality, and risk.  As such, my blog posts are not intended to be quick bites of information piggy-backed to other sources, or unsubstantiated commentary.  Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of any of my posts, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance or business transaction.  I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Intangible Asset Familiarity Produce Multiplier Effects and Strengthen Value Propositions!

March 21st, 2013. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

 Michael D. Moberly    March 21, 2013    ‘A blog where attention span matters’.

For many business management teams and decision makers, when the term ‘multiplier’ (effect) is used, it frequently conveys an economic context and/or outcome and seldom eludes to management team behaviors or actions, i.e., one’s that influence the pursuit of new, or at least different ways of thinking.

Different ways of thinking include executing a process, an initiative, or utilizing/exploiting assets differently than what’s been done previously.  The objective of course is, by doing so, will lead to (more) efficient and effective use, in this instance, of intangible assets, i.e., intellectual, relationship, and structural capital, etc., to achieve a more favorable economic, competitive advantage, and/or market position.

Achieving favorable economic, competitive, and market outcomes may be less likely to occur had those behaviors – actions of management teams and other decision makers not been influential as ‘intellectual multipliers’.  Intellectual multipliers can represent either significant or relatively subtle changes to business operations and/or transactions that create efficiencies, elevate effectiveness, identify new opportunities, etc., which, of course, lay foundations for positive and lucrative outcomes.

For example, the ‘multiplier effects’ described below, can be the product of management teams’ acquiring an intellectual, operational, economic, and competitive advantage familiarity with intangible assets.  That familiarity can influence – produce, in numerous instances, enterprise wide multipliers, e.g.,

  1. Kick start strategic planning to achieve more complete utilization – exploitation of intangible assets and IP…
  2. Elevate fiduciary appreciation      for the stewardship, oversight, and management (S.O.M.) of company portfolios of intangible assets and intellectual property…
  3. Contribute to aligning financial – risk management planning with (intangible) asset safeguards and  a company’s core – strategic objectives by having practices in place to  sustain control, use, ownership, and monitor asset value, materiality, and risk…
  4. Facilitate more timely (aggressive) pursuit of intangible asset – intellectual property rights violations, i.e., compromises, infringement, misappropriation, etc…
  5. Provide foundation for developing business organizational resilience (continuity and contingency) planning for intangible assets, IP, and proprietary competitive advantages to achieve quicker and more complete economic recovery during and following a significant business disruption or disaster…
  6. Add – bring consistency to accounting by (a.) describing intangible assets in revenue conversion formats, and (b.) representing intangible      assets commensurate with Sarbanes-Oxley and FASB Statements…
  7. Elevate company’s public stature, i.e., reputation and image among its customers, suppliers, investors, and other stakeholders      that can attract attention of ‘audiences’ well beyond a company’s traditional market – industry sector…
  8. Strengthen the interface (convergence) with (a.) IT-computer safeguards and practices, (b.) knowledge management programs, and (c.) balanced scorecard initiatives…
  9. Distinguish assets relative to their (a.) contributory value, (b.) life, value, functionality cycles, and (c.) facilitates more reliable quantifying – qualifying asset performance…
  10. Provide more efficient and effective use of IP counsel and allocation of IT and information security resources…
  11. Serve as leverage points in negotiating IT and IP insurance coverage and premiums…

Each blog post is researched and written by me with the genuine intent they serve as a useful and respectful medium to elevate awareness and appreciation for intangible assets throughout the global business community.   Most of my posts focus on issues related to identifying, unraveling, and sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring asset value, materiality, and risk.  As such, my blog posts are not intended to be quick bites of information piggy-backed to other sources, or unsubstantiated commentary.  Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of any of my posts, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance or business transaction.  I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Client Counsel: Intangible Assets and Law Firms

March 4th, 2013. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Law Firms. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   March 4, 2013       ‘A blog where attention span matters’!

Its 2013, and globally operating businesses are still in the initial stages of, to be sure, a permanent knowledge (intangible asset) based economy.  The objective is clear, compelling, and absolutely necessary.  That is, at this juncture, law firms with genuine intellectual property (IP) practices in place coupled with a strong culture – orientation for a strategic ‘forward looking – forward thinking’, may well be the professional entity best positioned to provide intangible asset stewardship, oversight, and management (S.O.M.) services beyond providing merely patent, trademark, and copyright issuances and the all, but inevitable, litigation.

This can only occur, I believe, with a dedicated, ‘roll your sleeves up’ client centric intangible asset awareness, alertness, and accountability (training) initiative.  It’s not terribly costly, nor is it overly time consuming, but it’s an excellent strategy  to legitimately re-engage existing clients as well as engage new-prospective clients, and if effectively articulated, will likely be met with real appreciation.

Intangible assets exist in numerous categories, serve company’s (the originators, holders of those assets) in many capacities, and of course, can provide substantial levels of  ‘contributory value’ and competitive advantages.  That is providing. of course, those company management teams, c-suites, and boards achieve (possess) both tactical and strategic operational familiarity with intangible assets’ relevance and use as viable and consistent contributors to (company) value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for sustainability, profitability, and growth.

In brief, the client centric awareness, alertness, and accountability initiatives I’m referring to should, at minimum, include components (modules) to for client companies to become smarter insofar as…

  •  Identifying intangible asset vulnerabilities and capabilities to rapidly detect and pursue suspected instances of (asset) compromise, loss, erosion of (asset) value and/or competitive advantages, anyone of which will jeopardize (asset) ownership, control, and use.
  • Becoming an entrusted custodian of clients’ intangible assets through (asset) stewardship, oversight, and management (S.O.M.) that can be genuinely leveraged to attract additional intangible asset (client) services.
  • Become a vehicle to accelerate a law firm’s entrée to build – extend intangible asset service initiatives into new, perhaps non-traditional and/or unconventional market spaces, i.e., (a.) trusted overseer of university-industry collaborative research projects, (b.) stronger role in investment and venture capital initiatives where intangible assets are key players, (c.) helping clients negotiate cyber – IP insurance coverage and premiums etc.
  • Enhancing a companies’ ability to recognize asset life, contributory value, and competitive advantage cycles and act accordingly in a strategic and well informed manner.
  • Instituting (asset) competitive advantage – contributory value safeguards, i.e., companies that effectively safeguard its proprietary intangible assets, simultaneously safeguards its ability to distinguish itself in its market space through the uniqueness of its knowhow, i.e., its intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, etc.
  • Achieving more efficient, expedited, but expanded use of legal counsel by concentrating on IP and intangible asset S.O.M. issues and less on corrective or remediating client missteps.
  • Strengthening client non-disclosure, confidentiality, and non-compete provisions in employment contracts to include the full array of intangible assets.
  • Strengthening investor confidence in a company by executing intangible asset risk exposures mitigation – prevention practices.

 My blog posts are researched and written by me with the genuine intent they serve as a worthy and respectful venue to elevate awareness and appreciation for intangible assets throughout the global business community.  Most of my posts focus on issues related to identifying, unraveling, and sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring asset value, materiality, and risk.  As such, my blog posts are not intended to be quick bites of information, unsubstantiated commentary, or single paragraphed platforms to reference other media. 

Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of any of my posts, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance or business transaction.  I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Law Firms Playing To Win: Get Serious About Providing Intangible Asset Services

February 8th, 2013. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   February 8, 2013

Strategy is about (a.) ‘shortening the odds’ and (b.) ‘winning with choices’, i.e., choices that apply firm wide and in a manner that turns strategy making into a collaborative dialogue where not a single individual’s perspective is necessarily dominant according to A.G. Lafley and Roger L. Martin in their newly published book ‘Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works’.

Winning however is not always about ‘stomping one’s competitors out of a sector market space or otherwise engaging in activities to ensure competitors lose’.  Quite the contrary, say Lafley and Martin, many firms can actually ‘win’ while being in (competitive) proximity to one another.

In this post, I am extrapolating some of the authors key views (found in and applying them to law firms and how they should genuinely consider developing and honing ‘strategies that really work’, insofar as deliberating the economic – business reality that intangible assets have relevance/application to each practice unit within a law firm.  In other words, I genuinely believe intangible assets are not the exclusive domain of intellectual property (IP) practice units.

One objective here, not unlike Lafley and Martin’s broader perspective, is to elevate awareness of intangible assets and encourage a law firm wide dialogue.  A preferable outcome of such dialogue would be that operational consensus is achieved about how intangible assets have relevancy to…

  • each practice area
  • the various legal transactions executed on behalf of clients, and whether
  • a professional obligation exists to conduct an intangible asset assessment at the outset of an engagement to determine which (if any) intangibles are
    • relevant to the legal service(s) being rendered
    • at risk
    • in play
    • affect or influence legal tactics, strategy, and/or outcome.

With respect to the practice of law, I say, any reasonably experienced practitioner would be hard pressed to identify a practice area in which intangible assets are neither relevant nor play a role to the legal work being executed on behalf of a client.

After all, it is a globally universal economic fact – business reality today, that 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, sustainability, and profitability reside in – evolve directly from intangible assets.  However, such recognition and application of this economic fact – business reality is incumbent on both legal counsel and their client to recognize.

Absent such recognition, by either party, I can suggest, with a high degree of certainty, that money, value, sources of revenue,  and/or assets themselves, will be ‘left on the table’, or worse, their contributory value irreversibly lost and/or relinquished to a competitor or legal opponent.

But, as Lafley and Martin point out, generally (not specific to law firms) it’s only when, in the scenario I’m describing, a firm’s practice leaders and managing director recognize the importance of literally ‘getting under the skin’ of client companies, does strategic clarity commence between a firm and a their (business) clients.

For many entities, be they law firms or businesses, their strategy is poorly, if not improperly, equated with merely a plan or vision.  When this occurs, it makes it much more challenging to articulate and legitimately practice ‘a strategy’.  And, in most instances Lafley and Martin point out, any absence of clarity makes it all the more difficult to describe ‘what winning really is’, which of course, should be any businesses primary objective.

Returning to law firms, in my view, this is where intra-practice recognition, collaboration, and adoption of respectful and practical strategies that genuinely recognize intangible assets play various roles and degrees of relevance to most every client engagement regardless of practice area distinctiveness or expertise.

Conventionally speaking, Lafley and Martin point out, businesses (not unlike law firms in my view) are inclined to seek-select clients (customers) whom they want (assume) to be ‘special, where it becomes, almost exclusively about ‘articulating and winning the value equation’ with these special clients.  I assert that any ‘client – law firm value equation’ today should, among other things, factor all intangible assets a client has produced and/or acquired which obligate collaborative insights (about intangibles) being offered from other practice areas, especially given the depth, breadth, range, and embedded characteristics of intangible assets.

Please remember, it is an economic fact that steadily rising percentages (65+%) of  most company’s value and sources of revenue, etc., evolve from intangible assets.  Logic suggests that equally significant numbers of clients experiencing legal challenges or seeking legal counsel come from intangible asset intensive businesses.

To me, this business reality makes it all the more essential that law firms acquire an operational and strategic familiarity with intangible assets which can be immediately applied to client engagements that translate as timely, relevant, and forward looking (firm) differentiators.  I am not reluctant to say intangible asset operational familiarity should  include at minimum the capability to identify, unravel and assess the assets’ control, use, ownership, value, and sustainability.  Such familiarity lays the foundation for firms, so inclined, to offer services to aid clients’ in achieving a much needed and higher level of stewardship, oversight, and management of their intangible assets.

Simply stated, any law firm should ‘feel’ a professional obligation as a client-centered and dependant entity to make its client’s happier than its competitors.  Fully addressing clients intangible assets is a clear, low cost, and potentially lucrative path (strategy) to achieve such a forward looking and competitive stature.

There’s no question ‘winning is important’ Lafley and Martin point out.  But, while short term (specific/individual client) wins are duly recognized as being important, long term strategic wins also carry significance and importance.  For example, if a law firm doesn’t genuinely sense the importance of trying to make each of its client’s happier, compared to competitor firms, overtime, its clients will recognize they are not be getting what they may otherwise with another firm, in this instance, excellent and practical counsel regarding the stewardship, oversight, management of their intangible assets.

Unfortunately, there are some (law) firms that consistently ‘aim too low’ which means’ they convey satisfaction with ‘just gliding along’ in their current state. based largely on past practice and assuming satisfaction with the status quo. That’s not to suggest they don’t want ‘to be in the game’ and acquire new clients.  But, a reality is, some clients are increasingly likely to trade one firm off for another as they learn they need – want specialized expertise, particularly in the area of identifying, unraveling, exploiting, managing, and monetizing their intangible assets.  The firm that’s traded off then tries to rationalize why the client opted out and sought legal services elsewhere.

To at least mitigate this practice of clients ‘trading off’, law firms need to convey a genuine willingness to achieve clearer understanding of clients’ strategic, not only their immediate needs.  This can be achieved by exhibiting absolutely no reticence about…

  • recognizing 65+% of most company’s value and sources of revenue reside in intangible assets and therefore, a growing percentage of clients’ need for legal counsel will involve intangible assets.
  • artfully and respectfully ‘getting under a client’s skin’ coupled with the courage to suggest implementing slight alterations and/or modifications, not wholesale changes, to a business clients’ operations to better engage in the stewardship, oversight, and management of their intangible assets.

Enhancing – broadening a firm’s practice to provide intangible asset services, especially to the increasing number of companies that exist and prosper based on the effective attraction, utilization, and management of their intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, vs. just focusing on or limiting the firm to delivering IP only services, i.e., patent searches and issuances.

There is absolutely no evidence to refute the reality that if will likely prove quite prudent for law firms to consider ‘carving out’ groups of existing or prospective clients currently being un-served or under-served insofar as their intangible assets are concerned.  To be sure, by skillfully and respectfully doing so carries a high probability of making clients happier and more satisfied and propel a firm to becoming a more lucrative differentiator in this expanding market space.

Again, by artfully and respectfully ‘getting under the skin of an existing or prospective client’ a clearer understanding can be achieved about which clients need and/or are (knowingly or unknowingly) seeking intangible asset related services.  By having intangible asset services and expertise, at the ready, and understanding that specific (legal) ‘jobs’ client’s need/want to get done, there is a cascading probability that client
expectations will rise accordingly which will contribute to making those law firm that possess intangible asset expertise to become a market space leader.

An important factor toward achieving this lies in respectfully communicating the enduring characteristics of intangible assets to existing as well as prospective clients, i.e.,

  • the irreversibility of the trend toward global economies that are increasingly dependent on – embedded with knowledge-based intangible assets, and
  • the (global) universality of intangible assets that play a consistent, but rapidly rising role in business transactions, company value, and sources of revenue.

A special thanks to A.G. Lafley’s and Roger L. Martin’s newly published book ‘Playing To Win’ for providing inspiration for this post.

My blog posts are researched and written by me with the genuine intent they serve as a worthy and respectful venue to elevate awareness and appreciation for intangible assets throughout the global business community.  Most of my posts focus on issues related to identifying, unraveling, and sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring asset value, materiality, and risk.  As such, my blog posts are not intended to be quick bites of information, unsubstantiated commentary, or single paragraphed platforms to reference other media. 

Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of any of my posts, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance or business transaction.  I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Security Product Marketing and Deployment Should Emphasize Intangible Assets

February 8th, 2013. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   February 7, 2013

Important, but often overlooked aspects today to marketing – promoting security products, systems, and/or services is recognizing the globally universal economic fact that 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, profitability, and sustainability today, lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets!

Thus, when security products are deployed properly and integrated with supportive practices and culture, their functionality is threefold, i.e., contribute to…

  1. safeguarding tangible (physical) assets, i.e., equipment, inventory, access control, intrusion detection, etc.
  2. producing valuable assets that are intangible, e.g., users’ sense – feeling of being (more) safe, secure, and productive, company reputation, structural and relationship capital, etc.
  3. mitigating risks to intangible assets., e.g. the best way to describe this is that today, any deal or transaction under consideration or about to be executed, valuable intangible assets will be not just be in play, they will be directly relevant to the outcome.

Number one and number two above are intuitive and generally, from my experience, serve as the primary starting points for framing promotional pitches related to security products because most buyers (aside from security practitioners) (a.) assume these outcomes are what’s needed – necessary and (b.) are unfamiliar (un-schooled) in other contributions and/or functions of security products, systems, or services like producing or mitigating risks to intangible assets.

With respect to #2 above, it’s essential, in my view, to incorporate the correct descriptor in ‘the pitch’, i.e., intangible asset to (a.) elevate awareness of the assortment of intangible assets that are commonly embedded in every environments representing all business sectors, (b.) ensure the functionality – deliverables of security products are distinguished relative the sector they are deployed, and (c.) recognize intangible by-products of security products, systems, and services.

For example, when users of an environment, e.g., retail, office, etc., feel (sense) that environment respects their patronage or productivity by introducing sector specific security measures to make it as safe, secure, and productive/efficient as feasible, they will be inclined to return that respect by (a.) being a repeat customer/client, or (b.) be more productive and elevate employee retention rates.

Security product developers, producers, and vendors would be well served by adapting and incorporating variants of this (sector specific) language in their marketing/promotional materials and/or sales pitches.  Again, the rationale for incorporating this language is that today’s business environment is global, increasingly competitive, predatorial, and aggressive, and dominated by knowledge-intangible asset intensive firms regardless of sector.

It seems obligatory then, that security products, and how they are marketed, promoted, and ‘pitched’ reflect these irreversible and paradigm shifting economic facts and business realities particularly as management teams, c-suites, and boards become more attuned to intangible assets in fiduciary (responsibility) contexts.

Various combinations of #1 and #2 are the dominant marketing – promotional messages relied upon by security product vendors.  However I have yet to hear a ‘pitch’ related to #2 using the correct descriptor, i.e., intangible assets.

Important, but often overlooked aspects today to marketing – promoting security products, systems, and/or services is recognizing the globally universal economic fact that 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, profitability, and sustainability today, lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets!

Various combinations of #1 and #2 are the dominant marketing – promotional messages relied upon by security product vendors.  However I have yet to hear a ‘pitch’ related to #2 using intangible asset descriptors.

Here are two important guides…

1.      Focus on business realities and economic facts, i.e., 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth, sustainability, and profitability lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets. These are irrefutable. Every existing, as well as prospective client produces, possesses, and should be engaging their intangibles as part of their enterprise risk management program.

Real and sustainable value can be brought to clients by helping (training) them to identify, unravel, and sustain control, use, ownership, and monitor (asset) value, materiality, and risks. This can be achieved by respectfully guiding clients to recognize what intangible are, their relevance, and the expanding fiduciary responsibilities to safeguard them.

2.      The conventional practice of framing security product ‘pitches’ that emphasize fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), while difficult to completely set aside, especially when existing and/or prospective clients are dismissive of and/or express reluctance to apply metrics or principles of enterprise risk management.

If security product (system, service) vendors commence engagements with a strong methodology and narrative that is not based exclusively on the subjective and conventional FUD approach, and instead, replace it with a ‘forward looking’ focus on safeguarding the value and sources of revenue produced by a client’s intangible assets, the probability of experiencing consistent success increases.

My blog posts are researched and written by me with the genuine intent they serve as a worthy and respectful venue to elevate awareness and appreciation for intangible assets throughout the global business community.  Most of my posts focus on issues related to identifying, unraveling, and sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring asset value, materiality, and risk.  As such, my blog posts are not intended to be quick bites of information, unsubstantiated commentary, or single paragraphed platforms to reference other media. 

Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of any of my posts, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance or business transaction.  I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

.

 

Intangible Assets In 2013: Where Businesses Must Be…!

December 31st, 2012. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams., Managing intangible assets. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   December 31. 2012

Recognizing how and strategizing where and when intangibles ‘fit’ in a company’s 2013 strategic business plan is a New Year’s resolution that will almost guarantee efficiencies, profitability, and sustainability!  But first, we must agree at the outset, that, globally speaking, 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and building blocks for growth, sustainability, and profitability today either lie in or evolve directly from intangible assets!

That’s an economic fact – business reality that no, heretofore reluctant, reticent, or dismissive management team, c-suite, or board should needlessly squander any time debating or arguing, rather, just press forward with the knowledge that if executed correctly will, not may, produce impressive strategic outcomes, i.e., competitive advantages, more secure and profitable transactions, and equally important, extend a companies’ sustainability.

Far too often, this economic fact – business reality is dismissed and/or disregarded by management teams who either lack understanding, harbor misgivings, or simply don’t possess the necessary interest to unravel the embedded and sometimes camouflaged benefits and multipliers that well nurtured intangibles can consistently deliver for a company and the various transactions undertaken and/or engaged.  One rationale is that a percentage of management teams, c-suites, and boards, are quick to dismiss intangibles as being (too) esoteric, or worse, somehow irrelevant to their company, the nature of its business, and it strategic positioning.

Any unfamiliarity and/or uneasiness among some management teams, c-suites, and stakeholders about what intangible assets are, how to identify them, and assess their contributory value, and then utilize and/or extract value (from them) efficiently and profitability can and should be overcome.

An initial step is designing and executing the proverbial, but always essential business case (rationale), which, for intangible assets, require some intellectual capital to design and integrate an enterprise-wide (intangible asset) awareness campaign that include…

  • developing congenial asset identification, stewardship, management, and oversight practices
  • sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring value, materiality, risk, and assess asset performance.

Each component above represents an essential element to achieving success as measured by elevated profitability, growth, and sustainability.

Those possessing the requisite fortitude and business acumen already know that designing and executing a company-wide initiative will inevitably present its own set of challenges, in this instance, the reality that intangible assets that…

  • lack physicality, and
  • seldom, if ever, are accounted for – reported on company balance sheet or financial statement.

The following represent (some) key factors which I personally recommend, that management teams, c-suites, boards, and relevant stakeholders should fully consider when conceiving and designing the necessary business case for making their intangible assets an integral part of their business routine and strategic planning and positioning…

  1. Bring operational clarity to intangible assets through a repertoire of relevant examples applicable to a variety of industries and sectors in terms of not just their value, rather their contributory value…
  2. Draw attention to the importance of practicing consistent stewardship, oversight, and management of intangible assets, framed as fiduciary responsibilities, not merely as additional or unnecessary tasks…
  3. Describe how and why it’s necessary to not just identify intangibles, but unravel their origin, evolution, nurturing, ownership, control, defensibility, sustainability, and contributory value…
  4. Incorporate best practices for sustaining control, use, ownership, and monitoring value, materiality, and risks to the assets, why each it’s necessary and who the adversaries are likely to be in addition to – other than sector competitors…
  5. Articulate (intangible) asset valuation, contributory value, revenue conversion, and performance measure in understandable (plausible) ‘economics 101? contexts…
  6. Describe how to determine asset ‘suitability and contributory fit’ to particular initiatives, projects, and/or transactions relative to their transferability, life/value cycle, and risks, and retaining/transferring ownership rights…
  7. Demonstrate relationships between the production (acquisition) and use of intangibles relative to how they produce multiplier-effects, add company value, and deliver competitive advantages, sources of revenue and specific contributory value…
  8. Describe ways to position and/or bundle particular assets (when/if feasible) to achieve broader leveragability, competitive advantages, and value potential…
  9. Avoid reliance on subjective – worst case scenario anecdotes or tactic to convey (asset) risks and threats as a tool to attract attention…

My blog posts are researched and written with the intent they serve as a venue to elevate awareness and appreciation throughout the the global business community for the identification, use, contributory value, and measuring performance of many forms of intangible assets.  My blog posts are not intended to be either quick sound bytes or merely commentary or references to other existing blogs.  Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of any of my posts, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are also encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance or transaction.  And, I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com.

Patents Are Just Intangible Assets Suitable For Framing…!

December 19th, 2012. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly    December 19, 2012

There’s really no difference between a patent and an intangible asset. In fact intellectual properties, of which patents are one, are merely one type or category of intangible asset. The only difference is that a patent, once issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can assume sort of a tangible or physical property insofar as it can be framed and hung on an office wall as a testament of one’s work. Frequently, much to the chagrin of intangible asset strategists, intellectual property, i.e., patents particularly, are the presumptive ‘brass ring’ which technology transfer managers, researchers, inventors, and legal counsel, etc., set their sights, sometimes, I believe, merely because there is no intangible asset specialist – strategist available to identify and articulate alternatives. Too, obtaining a patent conveys expertise, a sort of instantaneous, but sometimes, short-lived credibility, particularly in the academic arena.

I also suspect, somewhat respectfully, that deference is often attached to patent (only) strategies based on the time honored perspective that an issued patent conveys a sense of ownership and certain legally defensible rights, technically speaking.

Feeding this ‘patent only’ strategy is the widely held, but mistaken assumption that an issued patent constitutes a stand alone deterrent to, or safe harbor from would be infringers. However, the costs associated with obtaining, maintaining, and defending patents are considerable, making the proverbial ‘patent only’ tract, at least in my view, more risky, out-of-reach for frugal inventors and innovation regimes, absent committed and deep pocketed investors.

In today’s increasingly aggressive, globally predatorial, and winner-take-all (global) R&D and business transaction environments, patents are in a constant state of risk to infringement, counterfeiting, misappropriation, theft, etc., from a host of legacy free players, independant brokers, and state-sponsored entities most of whom are engaged in some form of economic (industrial) espionage.

That said, those who have participated in venture capital forums where inventor’s seeking investment make the proverbial ‘elevator pitch’ to a shrinking audience of venture capitalists and other types of prospective investors know that the inevitable ‘what is your IP position’ question will be asked, as sort of a faux affirmation that a patent only strategy is both the preferred and necessary option.

To be sure, at the 30,000 foot level, an inventors’ answer to the ‘what is your IP position’ question may appear to be a deal breaker for ‘invest – don’t invest’ decisions, or constitute a duty of sorts levied against the inventor.

But, in a growing percentage of circumstances, and I say this with the utmost respect, there are comparatively few researchers – inventors working at the 30,000 foot level, rather most are working at the ground floror level, and should realize the ‘gatorades and royalties’ (University of Florida, 1965) are really few and far between.

Again, patents are expensive to obtain, maintain, and defend. And, even if the entire patenting process goes smoothly for an inventor (company, institution, etc.) issued patents still remain at risk with the inventor, along with other professionals associated with an R&D process or its adminstration may stumble. That is, the research product will become entangled and/or ensnared in various legal disputes and challenges, fail to be effectively marketed, and/or resources being curtailed or withdrawn which are necessary to maintain the patent.

In far too many instances, I find the intangible asset offspring (enablers) of IP. e.g., patents, are overlooked, dismissed, or overshadowed by the assumption that the time honored practice – strategy of pursuing conventional intellectual property, i.e., patent applications, provisionals, issuances, licensing, etc., are perceived as either the best or only option. Of course, I disagree!

To that point, an analogy may be in order. When one seeks the guidance of SEO (search engine optimization) firms for example, to promote one’s website and/or blog, etc., the SEO’s business development – marketing officers’ lead statement will consistently be some variation of the following, ‘we’ll get you on page one of Google’! The reality is, there is no guarantee that getting a website or blog post on page one of Google will produce conversions that many mistakenly assume will evolve merely because something one has written has successfully maneuvered its way through the ‘google algorithm gods’ and found its was to page one, temporarily.

Yes, entrepreneurs can rationalize that all it takes is one good (the right) ‘conversion’ to kick start a company down the path to riches. But, reaching ‘page one of Google’ may not be all that a startup company really needs to achieve sustainable success. Instead, they are likely to be in need of a well-coordinated, focused, and specific strategy that effectively utilizes an array of internet resources and social media that presents many different options for exposure and conversion potential, not merely one!

So, for the foreseeable future, inventors, researchers, companies, and institutions who engage in R&D, perhaps their initial call should not be to (intellectual property) legal counsel, rather to an intangible asset specialist-strategist who can identify, unravel, and assess the enabling intangible assets and offer a variety of options and strategies that ‘fit best and work best’!

Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of this post, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance. And, I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593.

All Politics Are Local, But Most Business Transactions Are International…

November 30th, 2012. Published under Fiduciary Responsibility, Sustainability of intangible assets.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   November 30, 2012

The former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Thoms P. (Tip) O’Neill, is noteworthy for many things, one of which was his often espoused perspective that ‘all politics is local’.  We understand that ‘homey’ perspective because it’s very much ‘in your face’ during each national election cycle.  But, I’m confident Speaker O’Neill would agree that while most U.S. politics remains local, it routinely has coinciding national, regional, and international implications as well.

In many respects, the same holds true for many business transactions today, particularly when intangible assets are in play, because their origins are often global, not just local.  Drawing further emphasis to this lies the economic fact that 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue and ‘building blocks’ for (company) growth, profitability, and sustainability evolve directly from an array of intangible assets.

So, very much akin to political contests, most business transactions are conducted in increasingly competitive and predatorial contexts, with winner-take-all outcomes, but, never-the-less, bear local, regional, national, and certainly international implications.

One significant difference between business transactions and political contests, is that business transactions carry fiduciary responsibilities relative to the stewardship, oversight, and management of intangibles in pre and post transaction contexts because among other things, there is a contractual and legal relationship formed between the parties.  Whereas, the rhetoric politicians espouse during campaigns is broadly understood as being just that, unaccountable and non-binding rhetoric, until the next election cycle.

Credibility, confidence, and efficiencies and be added to the work of transaction management teams when intangible assets are in play as it increases the probability that pertinent details, particularly those related to sustaining control, use, ownership and monitoring the value and materiality of the assets (pre and post transaction) are considered.  In other words, intangibles must and should be fully addressed in any transaction and the transaction management teams’ on-going reports to their c-suite and board regarding transaction progress.

Too, it’s important to bring clarity to business transactions by distinguishing intellectual properties and intangible assets.  Conventional forms of IP are actually a subset of intangible assets.  IP enforcement mechanisms are well known, i.e., patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., but are not necessarily synonymous with…

  • sustaining control, use, ownership, or monitoring value, materiality, and sustainability of intangible assets, or
  • the ability to extract value (commercialization) benefits from a transaction.

Because intangible assets are almost inevitably in play in business transactions, transaction management teams are now well advised to:

  • Be consistently mindful of the economic fact – business reality that 65+% of a transactions’ value and ultimately the sustainable economic benefits lie in intangible assets…
  • Treat the control, use, ownership, and value of the intangible assets that are in play as business decisions and fiduciary responsibilities integral to relevant legal processes…
  • Recognize intangible assets are vulnerable – at risk especially pre-post transaction stages, so techniques to mitigate risks – threats and sustain control, use, ownership, and monitor the assets value and materiality is essential…
  • Recognize that if certain risks – threats materialize (pre – post transaction) they can:
    • undermine competitive advantages and erode projected profitability
    • cause time consuming and costly distractions that disrupt transaction momentum
    • ensnare-entangle the assets in costly legal challenges and/or disputes.

Thus, business transaction management teams are encouraged to integrate the above guidance, particularly when transactions involved intangible assets, which they inevitably do today; it will enable-facilitate stronger, more secure, profitable, and efficient transactions, not impede them!

Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of this post, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to the circumstance. And, I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com

Please watch for Mike’s book ‘Intangible Assets: Security Managers Roadmap’ to be published soon!

Prosecuting Intangible Asset Losses…

October 18th, 2012. Published under Insider Theft of IP and Intangible Assets, Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly    October 18, 2012

This post represents  an issue every CSO, CIPO, CISO, CTO, CRO, and corporate legal counsel should, if they haven’t already, fully consider.  Having taught in a university criminology department for 20 years, it’s less than rocket science to know that theft – stealing of property have conventionally been taught (interpreted) to involve some manner of misappropriation of ‘things’ i.e., real, tangible, physical property.

However, an intriguing question was posed by Stuart Green, a Rutgers law professor, in a NYT’s (March 28, 2012) piece, one which many of us have thought about. Basically, he asks, at least in my interpretation, whether the terms theft and/or stealing fit today’s circumstances, particularly when the assets stolen or misappropriated, are likely to be intangible, i.e., non-physical in nature?

Respectfully, I presume some readers of this blog and certainly my colleagues in the security – asset protection profession, find such a question unnecessary or perhaps worse, opening an unwanted and ill-timed ‘can of legal worms’.

For most prosecutors, and obviously the music and movie industries, it’s quite easy to assume they prefer, and are quite willing to devote the necessary resources to ensure the relevant institutions continue to apply the terms theft, stealing, and misappropriation using conventional and time-honored language that essentially does not distinguish tangible from intangible assets.

Conventionally (and intuitively) speaking, an act of stealing and/or theft have traditionally been interpreted as when either an individual or entity acquires (takes) property belonging to another, without their permission with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of said property.  Or, what Green and others characterize as a ‘zero sum game’, that is, one party loses an asset (property) rightfully belonging to them, while another party gains that asset or property. Bottom of Form

However, in the current knowledge – intangible asset-based global (transaction) economy in which, conservatively speaking, 65+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, ‘building blocks’ for future growth, sustainability, and profitability lie in – evolve directly from intangible assets, it does beg the legal question; are those conventional, time-honored definitions about theft – stealing relevant to intangible (non-physical) assets?

To add complexity, but, perhaps reality, to this position, again, in the context of the permanence of the knowledge – intangible asset based business economy, in some sense, as Professor Green suggests, when particular types/categories of intangibles are stolen, the rightful owner is likely to retain some or perhaps even complete use of those assets, albeit perhaps in a depreciated and/or undermined form insofar as reduced value and sources of revenue had those (music, video-based) assets not been illegally downloaded, because had they remained intact, they presumably could have delivered additional sources of revenue.

The reality is, as readers of this blog know well, we (companies) are producing, acquiring, and, inventing significantly fewer tangible things or assets in lieu of assets which are more likely to be intangible and non-physical.  So how does this very real circumstance mesh with the conventional perspective of prosecutorial ‘zero sum gain’ relative to (asset, property) theft and stealing?

Various courts and legislative bodies have periodically adjusted some of the conventional theft, stealing, misappropriation laws (language) according to Green.  Presumably that’s done to try to accommodate an economy and more business and personal possessions that are intangible (non-physical) in nature. Thus, has the time come, as Green posits, for specialized (presumably) legal doctrines to be developed to specifically reflec the (theft, stealing) misappropriation of intangible assets?

In the mid-1960’s, some criminal law reformers became frustrated with how courts and legal practitioners were endeavoring to distinguish tangible and intangible property.  One outcome of this frustration was that the American Law Institute developed a ‘model penal code’ which essentially defined property as constituting ‘anything of value.’  Personally, I remain unconvinced this was the most appropriate way to handle this.  Admittedly however, in 1962, intangible (non-physical) assets were hardly in mainstream business or legal vocabulary.

Presumably then, when-if tangible, intangible, real, or personal property succumbs to theft and/or misappropriation, they would be treated uniformly.

On a relevant note, a trust and estate attorney I met recently was asked about how she intended to address intangible assets her clients had accumulated when she was drafting their respective trusts, wills, or estate documents.  This particular attorney expressed virtually no interest, nor seemingly a clue about how to identify, unravel and value, or incorporate intangible assets in a will or trust other than to characterize it merely as an issue for an accountant to untangle.  Her stated preference was to consult with an accountant only – primarily for asset valuation purposes and accept whatever the accountant reported.  In my view, this perspective prompted me to wonder if this attorney was indeed operating in the 21st century?  She certainly, had not read any of my blog posts!

Today, of course, intangible asset intensive – driven businesses have sprouted globally, brimming full of intellectual, relationship, and structural capital, patents, brand, reputation, and often copyrighted material and patents, each of which play increasingly important economic and competitive advantage roles in profitability, sustainability, and growth potential, and hence should and must be addressed in wills, estates, and trusts.

There is, of course, a range of empirical studies, which, among other things, reveal that a significant moral distinction exists between (illegal) file sharing and theft of presumably tangible – physical property, even when the value of the intangible – tangible property is approximately the same.

So, for me, and my colleagues in the information asset protection and insider threat – risk arena, it seems, the more engaged we become in intangible assets and businesses and transactions driven by or have intangible assets routinely in play, the more complex and broader the dilemma becomes.

Illegal downloading is, of course, a real and persistent problem, that in all likelihood, will not be going away anytime soon.  Individuals work hard to produce creative works and are entitled to enjoy legal protection as well as reaping any economic benefits from their efforts.  If others want to enjoy those creative works, it’s reasonable to make them pay for the privilege.

Continuing to frame illegal downloading as a form of stealing, probably warrants some review by companies.  Companies may better position themselves if they consider a range of legal concepts that fit the nature and elements of the problem more appropriately; first one being, fully understanding intangible assets.

The most effective fix does not lie solely in terminology!  Rather, what we collectively come to call a particular type of crime is obviously important as is coming to grips with the notion that treating different forms of property theft, misappropriation, etc., be it tangible or intangible property, while it may seem clumsy for a while, it’s probably what we should be considering.

This post was inspired and adapted by Michael D. Moberly from a piece authored by Stuart P. Green published in the NYT’s on March 28, 2012.

Comments regarding my blog posts are encouraged and respected. Should any reader elect to utilize all or a portion of this post, attribution is expected and always appreciated. While visiting my blog readers are encouraged to browse other topics (posts) which may be relevant to their circumstance. And, I always welcome your inquiry at 314-440-3593 or m.moberly@kpstrat.com

 

Safeguarding Intangible Assets….But, Only For Their Life, Value, and Functionality Cycles!

September 14th, 2012. Published under Intangible asset protection, Intangible asset strategy, Intangible Asset Value. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly    September 14, 2012

As noted in numerous posts here, it is an irreversible economic fact (business reality) that steadily rising percentages (65+%) of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ for growth and sustainability globally evolve directly from intangible assets!

Ensuring (monitoring) control, use, ownership and value of those assets throughout their respective life, value, and functionality cycle versus for the lifetime of the company and/or holder is, in my judgment, a more practical, efficient, and probably a more advantageous strategy. 

The rationale is, in large part due to the assets’ increasingly integral role and relevance to the growing variants of business transactions constrained only by participant’s collective imaginations how to formulate relationships to achieve lucrative outcomes, be they joint ventures, collaborations, strategic alliances, etc.

But, companies are essentially on their own, to find the requisite expertise to not just understand intangible assets and their respective contributory value, but identify, safeguard, and preserve-monitor their stability, fragility, sustainability, and defensibility.  Importantly, these responsibilities are rapidly becoming fiduciary in nature and fall exclusively to management teams and c-suites to delegate.

Practically, intangible assets actual and contributory value seldom remains static.  In other words, intangible assets’ contributive elements – value may rise, fall, and otherwise fluctuate in cyclic fashion, i.e., in accordance with an assets’ contribution and/or functionality, again to a particular project, initiative, or a company as a whole.

A perhaps crude, but relevant characterization of an assets life, value, and/or functionality cycle is akin to what a doctor once told me about the need for a particular prescription medicine, i.e., ‘you will know when you don’t need it anymore when you start forgetting to take it and realize you are fine without it’.

This cyclic aspect to intangible assets’ (contributory) value, renders most conventional, snap-shots-in-time or one-size-fits-all valuation techniques less relevant or useful because among other things, they

  • do not factor materialized intangible asset risks – threats that can take asset value to zero almost instantaneously, and
  • provide little, if any, strategic (post transaction) context to asset value, in light of consistent presence of asset risks and threats.

We do know, once an (intangible) asset is compromised, infringed, or misappropriated, etc., their contributory value to a company’s competitive advantages, relationship and/or structural capital, or to a company specific initiative can begin to unravel and hemorrhage value and competitive advantages rapidly, globally, and in many instances, irrevocably.

For me, this makes it all-the-more-important to monitor intangible assets life, functionality, and contributory value cycles.  The point in time which assets’ contributive features no longer carry the value they once did or are necessary to deliver competitive advantages, it’s quite logical to assume there is no longer a need to devote resources to preserving their proprietary status. This suggests those resources and that time should be devoted elsewhere, perhaps to newly developed and valuable intangible assets.