Archive for 'Intangible asset mapping.'

Pitching Intangible Deliverables of Security Products

June 2nd, 2017. Published under Design thinking., Intangible asset mapping., Intangible asset training for management teams.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly June 2, 2017 m.moberly@kpstrat.com ‘A business intangible asset blog where attention span really matters’.

I would be hard pressed to count the number of occasions I have witnessed experienced security practitioners and/or entrepreneurs pitch genuinely innovative products designed to mitigate an emerging risk or make existing (security) procedures-practices more efficient and effective.

In most instances, product pitches, as well they should, are well rehearsed to appear extemporaneous. They are routinely filled with optimistic (anecdotal) jargon touting projections of inter-operability, scalability, benefits, and outcomes. Irrespective of the security product-service being pitched, seldom, if ever, does it mention the intangibles the product will also deliver, often simultaneous to its other, more tangible deliverables it was initially designed and intended to address.

A starting point for recognizing – appreciating the intangible side-deliverables of security products and services lies in the globally universal economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, competitive advantage, and sustainability today emerge directly from IA’s. (See Mr. Moberly’s list of intangible assets.) When this economic – social fact is knowledgeably and skillfully incorporated in ‘pitch messaging’, based on my experiences, it can, and frequently does, favorably influence prospective clients’ buy – don’t buy – deploy – don’t deploy decision by adding a heretofore, unacknowledged and useful deliverable.

Admittedly, for some business leaders, and their boards and management teams, intangibles, and discovering-exploiting the ‘intangible asset side of business, have yet to find a universal space in business lexicon. In other words, intangibles are not consistently applied-exploited in business communities, often being dismissed because the relevance of security product functionality is not recognized beyond the tangible! These experienced generalizations should not be construed as rationale for dismissing intangibles’ factual contributory role and value to any prospective clients’ business risk circumstance.

Prospective buyers-clients may seek clarity insofar as how – whether a particular-security product and/or service ‘fits’ their environment, or will serve their objectives. Professionals that routinely pitch security products-services should be keenly attuned to these, often subtle, expressions because they signal entrées to introduce and describe how-why-when the security product-service being pitched will deliver valuable – competitive intangibles.

So, as I see it, conventional methods for marketing-pitching security (asset protection, monitoring, surveillance, loss prevention, and risk mitigation) products, services, or systems, as if they are exclusively directed to and/or produce outcomes affecting (only, primarily) tangible-physical assets, dismisses the economic facts which clearly state otherwise. In product marketing-pitch circumstances in which intangible affects (by-products) are neither introduced nor explained as value-add benefits, prospective clients-buyers should have no expectation there will be measurable ROSI (return-on-security-investment) should they elect to proceed. It is also elevates the probability the ‘pitch’ will be unsuccessful with value, reputation, and brand left on a (negotiating) table.

On the other hand, marketing – pitching security products-services in a manner that convincingly describes how either will favorably affect the intangible – non-physical side of a business, it’s employees and users, will always resonate with prospective clients-buyers. Ironically, intangibles, even though they are seldom specifically incorporated in product-service pitches, their benefits are routinely expected, i.e., heightened sense of (personal) safety and productivity, etc.

Unfortunately, IA’s, and their contributory role and value to companies and businesses routinely go unrecognized insofar as application and operationalization. But, when intangibles are described as additional positive outcomes-deliverables of security products, prospective buyers’ interests will be renewed, even more so when the recognition translates to how to measure the (intangible) deliverables, i.e., value to user perceptions and desired outcomes.

For example, in the lodging – hospitality sector, users’ sense – perception of feeling safe, secure, and productive is unarguably paramount. When achieved, such perceptions are readily translatable to reputation, image, and goodwill, ala IA’s essential to property value, revenues, and sustainability. Too, when users of a lodging/hospitality environment sense their patronage, security, safety, and necessity for at will productivity are being respected and addressed to their satisfaction by the introduction of environment-circumstance specific security measures, they will be inclined to return that respect by being repeat users-guests. This is ‘economics – marketing 101’. Again, I am hard pressed to cite any prospective buyer of security products-services who does not expect these outcomes, whether acknowledged-articulated or not in their bid or RFP.

In my judgment, every professional involved in marketing – pitching security products and/or services are (fiduciarily) obliged to have operational level familiarity with the various IA’s their products-services produce and how each can influence – generate favorable orientations.
Achieving operational level familiarity with product-service produced IA’s, also serves as important starting points for framing promotional – marketing pitches.

Unabashedly, I am an advocate for incorporating correct, descriptive, and operative language in ‘pitches’ for security products and services that elevate decision-maker awareness about the array of IA’s that are already embedded and likely will be in play in every business decision circumstance.

Security product developers, producers, and vendors will be well served to adapt and incorporate relevant variants of ‘intangible deliverable’ language in their marketing-promotional materials and sales pitches. Another rationale for incorporating this (intangible) language in product marketing and pitches is that there are rising percentages of companies which are genuinely intangible asset intensive and dependent which means ‘operational familiarity’ is already present.

This makes it all-the-more important that the design, marketing, promotion, and ‘pitching’ of security products reflect the irreversible and paradigm shifting economic fact – business-consumer realities previously cited. This is particularly relevant as management teams, c-suites, and boards become more attuned to their company’s IA’s in fiduciary contexts and as fiduciary responsibilities.

Another framework for company – security management teams to engage their company’s IA’s, insofar as safeguards, preserving-sustaining contributory value and competitive advantages is to ensure it is aligned with enterprise risk management (best) practices, i.e.,

realizing the art and science of exploiting and safeguarding IA’s has
direct and far-reaching relevance to user, guest, consumer, buyer
experience and expectations.

Far too often, to my chagrin, security product-service presentations and/or pitches are very conventional insofar as assuming it is necessary dramatize how a particular product-service will mitigate, if not wholly prevent the materialization of FUD, i.e., sense fear, uncertainty, or doubt.
However, when security product (system, service) ‘pitchers’ replace the conventional with a strong and understandable narrative rooted in ‘forward looking’ focus of safeguarding each of the IA’s in play and objectively demonstrate favorable influence upon users, consumers, guests, and buyers alike, the probability of experiencing more consistent product-service sales success can measurably increase.

Intangible Asset’s Contributory Value

February 21st, 2017. Published under Intangible asset mapping., Intangible asset valuation., Intangible assets contributory value.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 21, 2017 A business intangible asset blog where attention span really matters!

During several engagements, I observed clients becoming frustrated with some (conventional) methodologies for valuing their IA’s. With the intent to mitigate such distractions, I set about developing a respectfully informative basis upon which IA’s could be distinguished and values (i.e., role, worth, materiality) assigned which I refer to the ‘contributory value’ methodology. This methodology allows IA’s contributory value (role, worth, materiality, etc.) to be distinguished relative to a business, a specific project, research, and/or a transaction.

The ‘contributory value’ methodology itself, is not quantitative, in the conventional sense. That is, there is no (one-size-fits-all) mathematical equation or formula used here to calculate and ultimately assign dollar value (ranges) to IA’s. Instead, this methodology demonstrates – reveals graphically, how, where, when, and which IA’s affect (business) value, competitiveness, and revenue, and therefore, deliver – possess ‘contributory value’.

The distinctive simplicity of the contributory value methodology is very relevant to circumstances other than transactions in which IA’s are being bought, sold, transferred, licensed, etc. For example, conducting a contributory value assessment for a business-company, provides leaders and management teams with practical and strategic insights about how, where, when, and which IA’s are being applied (effectively, efficiently) and if – how they affect value, competitiveness, and revenue as well as lucrative strategies for amending the current situation.

The ‘contributory value’ methodology, applied in this context, also reveals (and unravels) far more about a business’s (IA) operational and financial state than conventional, standalone, snap-shots-in-time methods that do not wholly address IA’s relationship – connection, and contribution to other assets. Desirably, the ‘contributory value’ methodology brings clarity to IA valuation by emphasizing the interactive-collaborative relationship and connectivity to (other) IA’s.

My primary rationale for developing the ‘contributory value’ methodology is that it serve as a respectful segue to clients, unfamiliar with IA’s, to better understand and differentiate the how’s, the when’s, the where’s, and the way’s, which the IA’s they and their business produces, possesses, and uses (individually, collectively, collaboratively) affect and/or translate to value.

Too, the ‘contributory value’ approach, through its graphically descriptive content renders IA ‘contributions’ more recognizable, measurable, monitorable, and predictive, insofar as…

• their compatibility with a company’s mission, strategic planning, and operating culture, etc.

• the rapidity and repetitiveness which specific risks manifest to adversely affect any-all IA’s in play.

• evidence of IA compromise, materiality change, and/or value-competitive advantage erosion or dilution.

• executing new product development, launches, and market entry.

• their incorporation into business continuity/contingency (organizational resilience) planning.

• recognizing IA’s life, value, and functionality cycles.

• a means to kick start enterprise-wide IA intelligent culture.

Another equally valid reason for companies to apply the ‘contributory value’ methodology (product) is that, for the foreseeable future, only 20+/-% of the stock price of S&P firms, is explainable solely by the content of conventional balance sheets – financial statements, ala ‘book value’. (Adapted by Michael D. Moberly from the excellent work of Dr. Nir Kossovsky, CEO, Steel City Re)

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, 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