Intangible Asset Multipliers

January 22nd, 2016. Published under Intangibles as strategic assets, Mergers and Acquisitions. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 22, 2016 ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

The word ‘multiplier’ as I observe it being frequently applied in both business and military contexts, requires some clarity. As an intangible asset strategist, I am inclined, for better or worse, to characterize ‘multipliers’ as often originating in distinctive/competitive knowhow and/or thinking.  Preferably, management teams will recognize how these IA’s (intangible assets) are translatable – convertible into tactics or processes which measurably ‘multiply’ effectiveness, efficiency, and/or output of say, a particular operating group, specific project, or process.

More specifically, through my lens, multipliers also refer to attributes or combinations of competitive inputs often collaboratively rooted (originate) in intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, i.e., IA’s. Collectively – collaboratively these multipliers are purposefully integrated in a particular initiative, project, or even organization-wide to favorably impact efficiency, effectiveness, and/or productivity, that otherwise may not have been feasible, particularly in environments in which there is little or no receptivity for multiplier(s) to evolve, mature, become recognized or integrated due to perceived concern that doing so would disrupt the status quo or create new risk.

One example where this has occurred is the consumer package delivery sector, several of which recognized obvious gains which could accrue by integrating – coordinating both GPS and RFID technologies. Standing alone, GPS and RFID are clearly tangible-physical (asset) technologies. However, their deliverables largely manifest as contributory and competitive IA’s that facilitate-enable firms in this sector to receive, process, sort, and deliver substantially more orders and packages, more efficiently compared to competitors that have yet to incorporate same.

For those operationally familiar with IA’s, i.e., their origins, development, and integration, in most instances, can (and should) also be leveraged – exploited as, among other things, value proposition multipliers, which in turn, confer credibility and rationale to capital outlays to pursue, purchase, and integrate the multipliers, ala GPS and RFID systems, while recognizing the various IA’s such multipliers produce and/or strengthen.

So, as more operational clarity is brought to IA’s contributory role and value as multipliers, organization boards and management teams will recognize…

  • their operational prerogatives will expand to correlate with IA development, utilization, and exploitation.
  • decision – transaction outcomes can be more predictable and lucrative whenever, however, and wherever, IA’s are in play.
  • the importance of effective OR (organizational resilience) planning to facilitate quicker and more complete economic-competitive advantage recovery following a significant business disruption or materialization of reputation risk, etc.

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

Reporting Intangible Assets

January 21st, 2016. Published under Board oversight, Communicating Risk, Fiduciary Responsibility. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 21, 2016 ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

When-where ever there is institutionalized indifference about the treatment of IA’s (intangible assets) at the hands of organization-company boards, management teams, legal, security, marketing, and accounting, etc., there will be a comparable stifling of curiosity for pursuing the actual contributory role and value of IA’s apart from the growing fiduciary responsibility to engage IA’s beyond the singular catchall of goodwill as described in Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362 (Del. Supr. 2006).

Yes, it remains quite true, IA’s are seldom, if ever, reported on company balance sheets or financial statements, a reality which I suspect will change in the not too distant future. In large part, the change away from (IA) indifference and dismissiveness to acknowledgment and engagement will be influenced (also) by necessity, e.g.,…

  • to provide more complete portraits of organization value, competitiveness, sustainability, and performance.
  • otherwise, organizations will be left unnecessarily holding far too many unknowns, uncertainties, and risks.

Not being trained in organizational psychology per se, it would be a reach to state with absolute certainty why, how, or the depth of (organization) ‘IA deniers’. As an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist, experience rather clearly suggests however, that the rigid inflexibility I encounter with ‘IA deniers’ will be challenged as IA intensive – dependent organizations become the norm, coupled with the managerial requisite for…

  • making consistently effective decisions whenever, wherever, and however IA’s are in play which compliments organizations interest in attracting go fast, go hard, go global management teams.

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

Media Sector Intangible Asset Valuation

January 20th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset valuation.. No Comments.

 

Michael D. Moberly   January 20, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

Admittedly, I sum up my media sector experience (public radio, particularly) as being a consistent, perhaps even, exclusive listener and observer since August, 1982. I suspect for some, this admission may inadvertently detract from this post’s credibility and transferability. To that, I respectfully ask readers of this post do so in its entirety and then draw their conclusions.

For media sector engagements, this IA (intangible asset) strategist, will initially identify the key and contributory IA’s in use – not-in-use, followed by a review of conventional valuation methodologies (described below). The intent is to accelerate management team thinking about the importance of and their fiduciary obligation to distinguish and apply their IA’s effectively

Most asset valuation methodologies, for the media consumer sector will likely apply some variation of unit-based measurement, i.e., identify-assess number of listeners, viewers, followers, down loaders, subscribers, page views and duration, programs listened to, and time variances, etc. Conventional techniques-strategies for valuing these assets generally stem from one or more of the following conventions…

  • Objective Value – that part of asset value that evolves from either its nature, context, and/or how the asset is applied/used.
    • Examples of ‘objective value’ assets are legal or financial documents, strategic alliances, transactions, personnel, employment contracts, and other data/information designated as competitive and proprietary by law or policy.
  • Subjective Value – that part of asset value relative to their contribution(s) to organization value and revenue (e.g., pledges, sustaining memberships, donations, gifts, etc.) which deliver market space leadership, competitive advantages, and enhanced reputation.
    • Examples of assets with subjective value are donor lists, program sponsorships, pricing strategies, community outreach, strategic planning and marketing initiatives, etc.
  • Value-in-exchange – considers the probable actions of consumers, i.e., communities of listeners, contributors, institutional – corporate sponsors and the value at which a particular asset could – would sell if (legitimately) offered on a piecemeal basis.
    • An example of a value-in-exchange asset would be introducing a specialized chemical compound into a production process to improve – distinguish a product among competing comparables. The integration relationship and competitive capital (pre-post production) would manifest as greater commoditization value than the chemical compound itself, if it were standing alone.

Note…many, if not most assets, particularly IA’s, possess collaborative and contributory components which in turn produce-deliver additional value, competitive advantages, and sources of revenue.

  • Value-in-use – is the value of a unit of IA that delivers sustainable contributory value to an organization.  This type of asset is often essential to an organization’s ability to sustain and/or advance market share, its value, sources of revenue, competitive advantages, and reputation, etc., i.e., Coca-Cola’s syrup recipe.
    • For example, growing percentages and categories of IA’s are operationally  integral to an organizations output by consistently contributing to other facets, e.g., customer/client goodwill and satisfaction, etc.
  • Fair Market Value – the price at which a propertied (intangible) asset would change hands…
    • providing there is a willing buyer and a willing seller,
    • with neither party being under any compulsion to buy or sell, and
    • both parties having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts regarding the assets.

Note…in instances where another’s proprietary IA’s have been illegally acquired – accessed, e.g., through information brokering, economic espionage, or competitive intelligence; without knowing who the ultimate end user of those assets will be and how they will be used, ‘fair market value’ obviously becomes moot or significantly distorted.

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

Conventional Intangible Asset Valuation

January 19th, 2016. Published under Intangible Asset Value. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 19, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

As I see it, most conventional asset valuation methodologies are rooted in structured milieus of accountancy regulations and standards codified primarily in earlier business eras when tangible – physical assets were the sole basis for valuation and making projections about worth, growth, revenue, and profitability, etc. Too, most conventional (asset valuation) methodologies have been variously silent on or indifferent to assigning comparable values to a company’s – organization’s IA’s (intangible, non-physical assets) which are rooted in intellectual, structural, relationship, and competitive capital.

Such conventional business (asset) valuation methodologies frequently find application to buy-sell transactions that accentuate tangible (physical, fixed) assets ala those reported on financial statements and balance sheets. But, in my view, these conventional methodologies are essentially snap-shots-in-time that leave the actual sources of organization – company value, competitiveness, and strategic performance out of the transaction (buy, sell, merger) equation by seldom, if ever, distinguishing (recognizing, assessing) the underlying and contributory role and value of IA’s (intangible assets).  After all, it is the IA’s that make – render transactions attractive and lucrative and competitive outcomes to happen.

In fairness however, conventional asset valuation methodologies were not designed (intended) to capture – value the intangible. But, that does not negate the need to do so now. After all, even the most ardent advocates of the status quo would now have some fiduciary obligations to acknowledge that IA’s are indeed relevant, integral, and strategic markers for gauging current – future organization value, competitiveness, and performance.

So, through my lens anyway, the conventional valuation methodologies produced largely subjective value estimates, often portrayed in ranges, ala Antiques Road Show, without distinguishing any specific contributory role – value linkage produced by IA’s. It’s reasonable to assume then, in numerous instances, such subjectivity, if in fact it is that, rendered organization leaders and management teams and their stakeholders unnecessarily receptive to engaging in speculative discord, i.e., an incentive for one or both parties engaged in a transaction to instigate prolonged disputes, even litigation, whose outcome is likely to stifle existing transaction momentum, strategic planning, and competitive advantages.

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

Orthopaedic Surgeon Reputation Risk

January 18th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset training for management teams., Intangibles as strategic assets, Reputation risk.. No Comments.

 Michael D. Moberly   January 18, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

Numerous RR (reputation risk) presentations that I have observed are quite conventional in their design and essentially become nuanced (confirmatory) explanations – highlights of what an audience is likely to already know and/or have experienced and routinely focus on reputation risks emanating from online platforms.

To be sure, this post departs from and expands those conventions by focusing exclusively on (orthopedic) surgeons’ reputation risk through an IA (intangible asset) lens, e.g.,

  • addressing reputation value as driven by interwoven and collaborative sets of IA’s, i.e., primarily intellectual, relationship, and structural capital.
  • recognizing and examining reputation and any attendant influencing triggers and vulnerabilities to achieve effective levels of resilience, durability, and enduring reputation risk mitigation strategies.

This post respectfully invites orthopedic surgeons, practice managers, and team members to examine, in a preventative and mitigation context, surgeon ‘reputation’ as an IA while recognizing…

…substantial percentages, perhaps 80+%, of most practice’s value, their sources of  revenue,  sustainability, and competitiveness evolve directly from interwoven and collaborative clusters of IA’s, the most valuable, but also most fragile-vulnerable being, reputation!

As an IA strategist and risk specialist, I distinguish orthopedic surgeon’s reputation as a critically essential and competitive asset which can develop sustainable value through respectful oversight, stewardship, and leverage. In my experience, most any initiative to sustain the value of orthopedic surgeon’s reputation, i.e., by mitigating its endemic – persistent risks, is substantially more likely to be achieved if done so having acquired an appreciation for reputation’s operable – triggering (intangible) features and elements, e.g., by…

  • recognizing the asymmetric rationales – circumstances in which reputation risks are likely to materialize.
  • recognizing and mitigating the initial-principle risk triggering emotions, circumstances, and demeanors which can rapidly materialize to undermine surgeon reputation and depreciate its competitive-attractive value.
  • introducing practical, efficient, and respectful pre and post op engagements with patients and their significant others.
  • demonstrating how reputation and goodwill can accrue and become ‘banked’ to strengthen practice/reputation value and mitigate the impact of (reputation) risks should they materialize.

It would indeed be an overstatement, in my judgment, to suggest every surgeon’s professional reputation is consistently at risk, thus, this is not merely a gratuitous or self-serving exploitation of reputation risk. Let’s be clear, I am not associated with nor do I represent another service provider that offers generic, one-size-fits-all strategies for mitigating or addressing reputation risk.

Nor do I speciously cast dispersions on orthopedic surgeon practices or resort to the conventional ‘FUDI’ approach to seek attention, i.e. fear, uncertainty, doubt, or inevitability as rationale to extort adoption.

Instead, this will describe orthopedic surgeon’s reputation and that of their practice as being interwoven with and reinforced by honed sets of personal capital, i.e., intellectual, structural, relationship, training, creative skill and technique, and affiliation.

The IA aspects/components to a surgeon’s reputation are seldom, if ever, addressed in conventional medical school or residency curricula, so reputation risk relevance, speed of materialization and probable adverse affects are frequently underestimated or passively dismissed.

The practice of orthopedic surgery is indeed, an IA intensive and dependant profession (business)!

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

Pre-Intangible Asset Era…Some Leaders – Companies Remain Stuck

January 12th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset training for management teams., Managing intangible assets. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 12, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

Since I began researching, publishing, conducting seminars, and consulting…20+ years ago on various aspects of IA’s (intangible assets), I have encountered many management team members who, on the surface at least, express satisfaction in assuming their organization still functions nicely thank you on practices rooted in the pre-IA era.

I suspect in many instances, what practitioners are exhibiting is a reluctance to engage their IA’s due, I have learned, to a application unfamiliarity which in turn triggers concerns that doing so…

  • may exceed their current experiential comfort.
  • would be too disruptive (time consuming, costly) to current organizational operating culture.
  • can deliver/produce returns unfamiliar to conventional conversion.
  • is conventionally thought to be ineffectual because IA’s are seldom, if ever, reported on balance sheets or financial statements.

Unfortunately, company – organization leadership who sustain such dismissive indifference to (uncurious about) their IA’s will seldom, if ever, be positioned to capture and exploit their value, sources of revenue, and/or competitive advantages which frequently I find is ‘readily available for the asking’ in their existing operating culture. Fortunately, I find only the most intractable few management team members will sustain such dismissive positions following my respectful and clarifying discussion. Or perhaps, they learn a competitor’s market advances are attributable to recognizing and engaging their IA’s!

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

PTSD… Intangible Asset Variant!

January 8th, 2016. Published under Analysis and commentary. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly  January 8, 2015  ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

I am confident that nowhere in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) referred to as an intangible (asset), even though PTSD has numerous similarities.

In today’s business – organization economics, decision makers and management teams are obliged, akin to a fiduciary responsibility, to acquire sufficient operational familiarity with their IA’s insofar as determining when, where, and how their contributory value, sources of revenue, and competitiveness originate and materialize. After all, it is an economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, etc., either lie in or evolve directly from IA’s, particularly mission centric variants-outgrowths of intellectual, structural, relationship, and competitive capital.

PTSD, on the other hand, not substantially unlike a company’s IA’s which are frequently so deeply embedded in business-organization culture that it’s difficult for management teams to recognize their existence and contributory role/value.. Similarly, evidence of behaviors which may be influenced, triggered, or produced by PTSD may take several years following one’s traumatic experience to surface, i.e., develop, mature, and materialize-exhibit behaviorally and/or emotionally. Too, as has been found to be the case, PTSD may manifest very individually, i.e., sparked by a myriad of circumstances, memories, situations, or conditions, to form equally diverse (sets of) behaviors.

If someone, perhaps a family member, spouse, close friend, or partner, etc., is actually ‘looking and listening’ with a modicum of care, PTSD markers, not unlike business IA’s, will be quite evident for which credentialed skill sets-training need not necessarily be a requisite aside from compassion, courage, and interest in the person.

I am respectfully doubtful that any Vietnam era combat veteran experiencing PTSD, whether it’s been officially diagnosed or not, would describe its impact – effect as an asset. Its lingering and persistent emotional destruction can lead to significant impairments to ones thoughts and perspectives, not unlike when business leaders are dismissive of their IA’s, much value, potential sources of revenue, and competitiveness are left on the proverbial table.

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

Public Radio Intangible Asset Intensive – Dependent…

January 5th, 2016. Published under Intangible Asset Value, Intangibles as strategic assets, Managing intangible assets. No Comments.

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

I am an advocate, avid listener, and sustaining member-supporter of the NPR (National Public Radio) station in my city. This admission aside, it’s quite correct, in my judgment, to characterize NPR, and its comparables and collaboratives, i.e., American Public Media, Public Radio International, and Public Radio Exchange, etc., as IA (intangible asset) intensive and dependent organizations.

Readers are respectfully obliged to acknowledge that IA (intangible asset) intensity and dependence are not the exclusive domain of private sector, Fortune-ranked corporations, ala Silicon Valley research based startups.   Instead, companies, organizations, and their management teams who wish to capture and exploit their IA intensity-dependency should recognize it emanates from the convergence of intellectual, structural, relationship, trust, reputation, and creative capital relative to organization culture and mission variants, to create – enhance value, for example…

  • IA intensive…translates as a high percentage (80+%) of public radio station’s value and impact to its communities of listeners and contributors lie in – evolve directly from the formatting and delivery of its IA’s.
  • IA dependent…means that public radio’s daily array of attractive-desirable programming is reliant on a…
    • consistent influx and integration of intellectual, structural, competitive, and relationship capital, ala IA’s…
      • that collectively and collaboratively attract and sustain broad communities of (national, international) listeners, a percentage of which…
      • convert to enhancing and sustaining communities of listeners, memberships, contributions, sponsorships, and corporate-foundation underwriters.

Public radio seems to enjoy the benefits of a continuous and evolving supply of ‘people assets’ who can seamlessly and collaboratively deliver forward looking – thinking variants of their intellectual, structural, and creative capital which inevitably meld into communities of listeners’ ears via expanding  platforms. It is for these reasons that I am confident public radio station’s value, when factored through an IA lens, would lie consistently north of the 80+% figure referenced above.

Client organizations and/or seminar attendees of mine who achieve familiarity with and interest in IA’s, frequently ask me to identify which IA’s their organization – company intensity and dependency are most reliant. The answers to these questions are best addressed through an ‘IA mapping’ exercise I developed which identifies paths-routes that describe when, where, and how IA value and competitive advantage originate, develop, attach, collaborate, and ultimately flow.

I generally endeavor to dissuade organizations and their management teams from using some of the more conventional methodologies that are dismissive of intangibles or merely provide a ‘snap shot in time’ (portrait) of IA’s contributory – collaborative role and status absent recognition of value. The ‘IA mapping’ methodology, which I continually endeavor to refine, acknowledges that the contributory and collaborative aspects underlying IA value, competitive advantage, and materiality is seldom static, rather evolves to accommodate any shifts to an organization’s mission, technology delivery formats, or other issues of the day, etc.

Public radio’s IA asset intensity and dependency also correlates to trust and relationship capital and reputation. Sustaining and banking each category/type of IA with communities of listeners, supporters, and underwriters warrant consistent stewardship particularly in markets where other media-journalistic outlets compete.

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

Intangible Asset Inventory

January 4th, 2016. Published under Managing intangible assets. No Comments.

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

If it can’t be measured, perhaps, just perhaps, it can’t be managed either! An adage which I have taken some liberties is widely attributed to Peter Drucker. In my view, it carries more relevance today than when it was initially uttered. My rationale for saying this is rooted in the economic fact that increasing percentages, 80+%, of company/organization value, sources of revenue, competitiveness, sustainability and growth lie in – evolve directly from IA’s (intangible assets).

Rooted in my experiences as an IA strategist and risk specialist, I believe most all IA’s evolve from company-organization mission and culture variations of intellectual, relationship, and structural capital. Optimally, these assets meld together to serve as foundations for, among other things, sustaining and enhancing company-organization value, brand, reputation, goodwill, competitiveness, growth, profitability, and specialized know how, etc. Simply put, there are few other occasions in company – organization governance history when measuring the performance of and managing (inventorying) the contributory – collaborative role, value, and materiality of IA’s has become more necessary, i.e., akin to fiduciary responsibilities (ala Stone v. Ritter).

Materiality in this context translates as monitoring – assessing each asset’s role and contributory value throughout its respective ‘life – value cycle’, i.e., contribution to a particular project, process, and/or initiative.

The benefits – returns for IA inventories, among other things, is ensuring decision makers are consistently positioned to recognize, in a timely manner…

  • any changes in assets contributory value-materiality including obsolescence.
  • opportunities to sell, barter, safeguard, mitigate risk, seek collaborations, or discard non-contributing IA’s.

But, an inventory of a company’s – organization’s IA’s must be much more than a mere snap-shot-in-time reference point. Instead, it’s economically – competitively prudent to seamlessly integrate IA inventories as routine fixtures to company – organization sustainability. Absent that, IA value and materiality is known to fluctuate prompted at least in part by competitive advantage erosion or undermining through (asset) obsolescence and/or product-process misappropriation or infringement.

When these and other comparably adverse events/acts occur, IA’s value and ability to sustain its value, competitive advantages, and profitability, etc., can be significantly impaired along with their contributory value becoming irreversibly undermined or stifled.

Therefore, having the capability to consistently monitor and measure (inventory) key IA’s at will, positions companies and their management teams to be more responsive to meeting their expanding fiduciary responsibilities, i.e.,

  • the inevitable challenges, disputes, and external targeting that routinely occurs.
  • allocating – directing asset safeguard-risk resources more efficiently and effectively commensurate with an assets’ life and contributory value cycle.

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

Intangible Assets Business Lexicon

December 30th, 2015. Published under Intangible asset training for management teams., Intangible Asset Value. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   December 30, 2015   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

An oft cited reference about contemporary American labor and today’s increasingly consumer driven-dependent economics is that fewer among us are employed in positions where we actually make-produce something in its entirety. While there are obvious truisms to this perspective, it’s essential to acknowledge most of us do contribute to product-service completion and outcomes but, through individual, collective, and/or collaborative inputs of our intellectual, creative, relationship and structural capital, i.e., the foundational IA’s (intangible assets)!

There has indeed been a shift in the origins of organization value, income (revenue), creativity, and competitiveness, etc., from milieus of physical – tangible assets to interwoven and collaborative bundles of non-physical, IA’s. To be sure, for IA intensive and dependant businesses, it is no longer a foregone conclusion that those with the most buildings, the biggest machines, and the most employees will win! Similarly, higher percentages of organizations today would be hard pressed to validate any perception they still function exclusively on the inertia of past – pre-IA era practices.

The ascension of IA’s in business value and output commenced in the late 1990’s as the knowledge – know how era with its foundation of intellectual, structural, relationship, and creative capital were becoming irreversibly evident. In other words, IA’s were increasingly integral to business operability and there was no foreseeable ‘bubble’ to the knowledge era. Competitiveness, efficiency, and profitability were descriptive terms rapidly being associated the growing number of businesses that legitimately are IA reliant and dependent.

During this time, two extraordinarily influential and parallel research projects were underway, i.e., New York University’s, Intangibles Research Project and The Brookings Institutions’ Task Force on Intangibles (Unseen Wealth). Both projects were similarly focused on unraveling confirmatory evidence that organization value, sources of revenue, and competitiveness were indeed originating in non-physical (intangible) assets at such a rapid pace they (IA’s) were usurping the conventional dominance of physical (tangible) assets as the exclusive underwriter to business profitability and sustainability.

Also, confirming and often preceding research conducted-published by UK and EU (European Union) universities and institutions made substantial contributions to bringing IA’s into the vestibule of business lexicon. Initial estimates at the time were that 50+/-% of organization value and sources of revenue derived from IA’s.

Mr. Moberly is an intangible asset strategist and risk specialist and author of ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ published by Elsevier in 2014.