Patents Are Collections of Embedded Intangible Assets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing Intangible Assets To Skeptics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combat Intellectual Capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intangibles Of Combat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Company Culture A Valuable Intangible Asset

January 29th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset focused company culture.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 29, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

A well developed and respectfully monitored company culture is an intangible asset which, when permitted, produce-deliver very tangible returns!  Essentially, a company culture exists when an (intangible) environment is created whereby employees recognize and are generally and willingly accommodating to particular configurations – arrangements of attitudinal and behavioral expectations, i.e., a like-mindedness.Numerous individuals with presumed expertise – experience in company culture building, go so far as to say, culture reflects a company’s soul, which perhaps in today’s context, translates more as a substantial contributor – component to brand.

As an IA strategist and risk specialist, I make no apologies for my advocacy of ethical company cultures. Investments of thought, time, and energy to develop, integrate, and sustain a company culture are routinely wise – prudent investments.

On the other hand, of course, when company cultures are neglected, ignored, or dismissed as irrelevant, or absent consistent and respectful nurturing and monitoring, it’s likely some type of culture will evolve anyway, perhaps not one intended or preferred, but, it will come to exist. In other words, the (company) culture that does evolve in such circumstances may do so in ways that are not particularly helpful to the company, its mission, or consumers it wishes to attract.  Yes, a cultureless company can manifest in many different ways, but certainly not all leading to financial – competitive doom. My experiences – observations do point, with some confidence, a purposefully cultureless company is likely to be substantially more draining-taxing on management team’s time and energy to referee, moderate, and/or remediate relatively mundane issues that would otherwise likely accommodate themselves through personnel (cultural) expectations.

From a financial perspective, David Lupin, and many others, including this IA strategist, suggest, investing in (company) culture building is comparatively low-cost and comes with a favorable probability that a company doing so will experience measurable long term economic and competitive advantage returns. While a company culture, like other IA’s, is not necessarily subject to one’s conventional senses, most all know when it is present, absent, or needs remediation.

Worthy takeaways to this post are…

  • ensuring a mission relevant, effective, and ethical company culture exists, and
  • it is measurably convertible to value.

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

Prioritizing Public Radio’s Intangible Assets

January 28th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset assessments/audits., Intangible asset valuation., Sustainability of intangible assets.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 28, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

National Public Radio (NPR) is a privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to a network of 900 public radio stations in the United States.

NPR produces and distributes news and various cultural programming, however, individual public radio stations are not required to broadcast all NPR programs, instead most broadcast a mixture of NPR programs and content from other providers, i.e., American Public Media, Public Radio International, and Public Radio Exchange, as well as locally (station specific) programs.

There numerous qualities My experience in identifying and prioritizing most organization’s IA’s (intangible assets) commences with assessing the assets’ strategic relevance to mission, i.e.,

  • the sustainability – longevity of the asset’s contribution to an organization’s overall value and/or to a particular project or initiative.
  • their consistency insofar as sources of revenue and competitiveness, and
  • their defensibility.

There is an important caveat to this process however, at least through my lens. That is to ensure IA prioritization is not portrayed in a subjective (high, medium, low) continuum context or range estimates, ala Antique Road Show. Instead, asset prioritization should include clear and objective demonstration of their collective, collaborative, competitive, and/or individual contributory role(s) and value.

IA’s, of course, materialize in various ways. For example, relationship capital (an IA) that a public radio station and its staff forge with their communities of listener’s and stakeholders, holds substantial value and frequently triggers new initiatives, projects, and/or programming which in turn deliver multi-layered competitive advantages, i.e., attractive platforms for articulating – communicating issues of the day to all corners of a station’s community of listeners and stakeholders. As it is for any journalistic – news gathering – reporting enterprise, relationship capital is an essential, highly prized, and very valuable IA which embodies, in this instance, a public radio station’s brand.

I am confident public radio leadership appreciate – recognize (station) value, competitiveness, and impact to their respective communities of listeners. These are frequently attributable to prudent ‘envelope pushing’ initiatives, be it through exceptional personnel, new programming, or schedule modifications integrated-enhanced through community outreach, social media, podcasts, an informative website, and a receptively engaging staff. Each serve public radio as legitimate and effective leverage points to…

  • attract capable and creative-innovative intellectual capital (staff).
  • operate an organization with an appealing-gratifying work culture and ethic.
  • deliver substantive content about issues of the day to its communities of listeners, readers, contributors, and sponsors, and
  • strengthen, expand, and ‘bank’ relationship capital.

It is indeed indisputable economic fact that IA’s play increasingly significant roles in organizations, ala 80+% of their value and sources of revenue, etc., lie in – emerge directly from IA’s. So, again, I encourage IA prioritization unravel IA’s relative to their individual and/or collaborative and ‘contributory role-value’, e.g., to a particular project or initiative, a station’s mission and its competitive advantages.

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

IA’s, Beyond Conventional Financial Statements and Balance Sheets

January 27th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset assessments/audits., Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 27, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

What I wish to draw reader attention to in this post are conventional financial statements and balance sheets. Both documents are the presumptive ‘Holy Grail’ for identifying – projecting organizational performance, value, growth, and sustainability, etc. But, seldom, if ever, does either (largely regulatory) document, report IA’s (intangible assets) which are internally originated – developed. Instead ‘conventional’ financial statements and balance sheets report only externally acquired IA’s, leaving internally developed IA’s indistinguishably combined – lumped together as mere goodwill.

My experience suggests, in many instances, conventional balance sheets and financial statements  serve to moderate, if not stifle, management team  curiosity – motivation to engage their organization’s IA’s and/or mischaracterize activities related to identifying, unraveling, assessing, and valuing them as pointless undertakings, even though doing so will assuredly develop lucrative – competitive paths of value, revenue, competitiveness, resilience, and sustainability.

As an illustration of this, readers are asked to consider buy-sell transactions for a public radio station, wherein convention would emphasize – draw attention to assets which have more tangible features and outputs, i.e.,

  • numbers – size of a.m. – p.m. listening audience.
  • competing radio stations in the same market space.
  • height of transmission tower and strength of transmitter signal, etc.

Obviously, buy-sell transaction due diligence will reveal some-all of the above and competitively positioned and lucratively exploited, individually – collectively will be desirable assets. However, for this IA strategist these represent tangible-lite types of assets and would be a secondary focus of due diligence I would execute in the same circumstance.

Instead, I would focus more attention on the contributory role – value, competitive position, and measurable impact delivered by a station’s internally originated – developed IA’s relative to its communities of listeners, contributors, donors, and sponsors, along with assessing each IA for its stability, fragility, materiality, and defensibility.

In fairness, conventional financial statements, balance sheets, and asset valuation methodologies were generally not designed (intended) to capture the intangible, i.e., what we factually now know to be the most relevant strategic markers for gauging an organization’s financial health, competitiveness, and performance. To be sure, absent operational familiarity – insight about IA’s contributory roles and value, organizations are significantly less likely to achieve a comprehensive or necessarily accurate portrait of their financial and competitive position.

For these reasons, I encourage readers to recall…it really is an economic fact that 80+% of most organizations value, revenue, and competitiveness, derive from IA’s. If you are a buyer or seller of an IA intensive – dependant organization would it not be prudent to have this (due diligence) knowledge in advance?

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

Marketing Security Emphasize Intangible Assets

January 26th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset strategy, Intangible asset training for management teams., Intangibles as strategic assets. No Comments.

 Michael D. Moberly   January 26, 2016   ‘A business blog  where attention span really matters’!

I have been consistently engaged on the peripheries of developing, marketing, and selling various security products, systems, and services for 25+ years. I find it somewhat remarkable that so many well intentioned and variously successful practitioners employed in this sector do not appear to have developed or legitimately integrated in their ‘pitch’ narratives exploitable IA (intangible asset) derivatives produced by their security products, systems, and services

After all, it is a universal economic fact that 80+% of most clients and prospective client companies’ value, sources of revenue, competitiveness, profitability, growth, and sustainability lie in – evolve directly from IA’s, a percentage of which derive – are attributable to security products, services, and/or systems deployed in their environments.

It’s worth noting intangible assets are…

  • …unique knowhow a company (its employees) possess, and the special value that comes from understanding how, when, and under what circumstances to apply it best. (McKinsey & Company)
  • …the economic and competitive advantages and benefits embedded in companies’ IC (intellectual capital), i.e., knowhow, experience, etc., and its SC (structural capital), i.e., processes, procedures, and practices that set the products and/or services it produces and delivers apart from its competitors. (Michael D. Moberly)
  • … distinctive and/or unique blends of business activities, processes, know how, and customer/client relationships that companies can exploit to differentiate themselves and create value. (Michael Porter, Harvard Business School)

One, of several consistent observations of 25+ years of conversing with many hundreds of personnel at all levels in the marketing and sales of security related products is a noticeable absence of recognizing the persuasive influence of weaving and leveraging lucrative IA-rooted benefits and competitive advantages that routinely emerge from the deployment of security.

To be sure, the oft used tactic/technique of peppering pitches with FUD factors, i.e., fear, uncertainty, and doubt, to convey the immediacy of a risk/threat or exploit – extrapolate a recent adverse event to a prospective clients’ circumstance, while relevant in some instances, should, in my view, no longer be the dominant feature to any pitch.

Instead, it’s obligatory now that security products with respect to how they are marketed and ‘pitched’ reflect the irreversible and paradigm shifting economic fact that 80+% of most organizations value, sources of revenue, competitiveness, profitability, growth, and sustainability lie 0 evolve directly from IA’s. This means management teams particularly, achieve operational familiarity with their IA’s to recognize when, where, how, what, and why security products geared toward safeguarding and/or mitigating risks to its IA’s is so essential and ignoring – dismissing same is all but assured to become a substantial vulnerability with debilitating consequences.

Again, the rationale for incorporating security product marketing-sales language that specifically emphasize safeguarding prospective client’s IA’s represents forward thinking – looking attributes language very relevant to today’s global business environments which are increasingly intangible asset intensive and dependant.

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

Public Radio IA Mapping, Entrée To Value Proposition

January 25th, 2016. Published under Intangible asset mapping., Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly   January 25, 2016   ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’!

I consider myself an IA (intangible asset) strategist and risk specialist. As such, the impact of introducing a new programmatic – listener relationship initiative to a public radio station can be gauged (economically, competitively, etc.) by a process, which I call ‘IA mapping’.

Forward looking-thinking public radio leadership who have acquired an operational familiarity with IA’s are likely to be already engaged in the fundamentals of IA mapping. That is, they recognize there are two equal levels of programmatic ‘first responders’, which in most instances, run parallel to – are complimentary to one another, for example

  • generalist and specialist reporters, their producers, and (in house) on-air deliverers that contextualize, articulate, and deliver issues of the day as they arise.
  • external relationship builders who transform ‘issues of the day’ into distinctive (personalized) venues that engage a station’s ‘communities of listeners’.

It is these ‘first responders’ who will likely recognize and distinguish the IA’s, i.e., intellectual, structural, relationship, and competitive capital, etc., that should be drawn upon to optimize ‘issues of the day’ for the station’s ‘communities of listeners’ through the various communication platforms which are available.

With regularity, IA’s have become the centerpiece to organizations’ value proposition, which again, manifest through ‘IA mapping’, e.g.,

  • inventories of an organization’s IA’s that…
  • reveal when, where, and how intangibles originate, develop and attach to particular initiatives internally.
  • whose presence and status sustains for the duration of their life-value functionality cycle.
  • provide timely awareness about any changes in and/or risks to asset materiality, contributory role-value, and impact.
  • statements of deliverable ‘value adds’ (benefits) that public radio’s communities of listeners, contributors, and sponsors can expect, will experience, and will use.
  • strategies to distinguish, assess, and monitor a public radio station’s IA’s that are in play and applied to particular initiatives, alliances, and other journalistic undertakings intended to impact ‘communities of listeners’.
  • reaches substantially farther than conventional snap-shot-in-time confirmations that a particular IA is present, in development, or being applied.
  • a conduit to facilitate the rapid movement of IA deliverables to impacting communities of listeners, i.e., specific benefits and returns that respectfully address an unmet or perhaps not fully realized need.
  • a timely method to channel where, how, and when IA resources should be directed to reflect how issues of the day are articulated and delivered as they arise.

IA mapping is also meaningful way for IA intensive and dependent organizations like public radio, to sustain their strategically competitive position, e.g., by recognizing…

  • which type – category of IA should be acquired, developed, and
  • when, where, and how to resource, bundle, and utilize IA inputs with the necessary intellectual, structural, relationship, and competitive/creative capital.
  • the necessity to monitor IA materiality cycle, contributory role, value, and risk, and
  • the importance of mitigating probabilities that IA’s will become vulnerable-attractive to adverse and frequently irreversible cascading effects associated with asset theft, misappropriation, reputation risk and/or contesting asset origin and ownership.

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

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, View Mr. Moberly’s videos on YouTube at ‘safeguarding intangible assets’ or his CNN and CNBC videos at his webpage