Intangible Asset Book…forthcoming!

April 10th, 2017. Published under New Intangible Asset Book. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly April 10, 2017 ‘A blog where attention span really matters’. (PART I)

Introduction: The following represents a snippet of my forthcoming (second) book on matters related intangible assets. The first book titled, ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ was published by Elsevier in July, 2014. In my new, yet to be published book, readers will be presented with multiple and various ‘solution sets’ to address real, current, and recurring challenges related to developing, unraveling, and exploiting their IA’s.

In large part, this is objective is achieved by describing lucrative, competitive, durable, and cross (industry) sector rationales, methodologies, and strategies (solution sets) for business leadership and company management teams to exercise relative to recognizing how…

• naturally occurring IA’s originate, can be acquired, developed, and produce internally.

• when, where, and why particular IA’s are in play relative to their contributory role, value, and competitive advantages brought to any (business) transaction or initiative.

• to consistently and objectively engage businesses IA’s resolve – mitigate challenges, and maximize and exploit IA’s contributory role, value and competitive advantages, i.e., intellectual, relationship, and structural capital.

• to be aggressively and objectively engaged in mitigating risks to IA’s, which when, not if, the risks materialize, can-will undermine, if not wholly negate, IA value and competitive advantage with respect to transactions or initiatives considered or being undertaken.

Also, my forthcoming book addresses the always present (fiduciary) responsibilities held by business/company management teams and senior personnel charged with…

• designing and executing practical and defensible IA safeguards.

• anticipating and mitigating risks to IA’s for each business circumstance they are in play.

• creating asymmetric processes to achieve and sustain organizational resilience for IA’s which includes consistency in monitoring (IA) presence, utilization, and changes in value and/or materiality.

• recognizing which, when, and for what purpose should particular (new, additional, updated, or more nuanced) IA’s be acquired, developed, integrated, i.e., lucratively, strategically, and competitively exploited.

Another, underlying challenge to recognizing, safeguarding, exploiting, and otherwise using (a company’s IA’s) lies embedded in the global IA business space, wherein there remain a significant percentage of the leadership of companies-organizations beginning, in my judgement with university (undergrad, and graduate) business, marketing, and economics (major) students whom I routinely find are definitionally and operationally unfamiliar with IA’s. That is, they lack familiarity with IA’s and are unable to distinguish, assess, and recognize – measure IA performance, contributory role, functionality, materiality, and/or value to a specific project, initiative, or transaction.

One potential rationale for this absence of (IA) familiarity is embedded in this book’s (proposed) title, i.e., IA’s are the ‘introvert’ of all business assets.

Numerous university (departmental) leadership appear convey their own reluctance to pursue-secure consensus for distinguishing, developing, and incorporating IA’s in relevant (major) curricula, whereby (business, finance, marketing, and economics) students would be introduced to – immersed in the irreversible business reality and globally relevant economic fact that ‘80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, reputation, competitiveness, and sustainability lie in – emerge directly from IA’s’!

Thus, the absence, or trivialization of IA’s role and contributory value, gleaned from a university curriculum, to draw upon and apply in the various business-related employment graduating students undertake, will unnecessarily and adversely influence the perspectives held about IA’s.

Circular Economy and Intangible Assets

March 13th, 2017. Published under Intangibles as strategic assets, Looking Forward, Value Propositions. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly March 13, 2017 ‘A business blog where attention span really matters’.

When introducing – executing a new business concept, leadership and management teams exhibiting an initial interest, in this instance, to a ‘circular economy’, may also be inclined to recognize obstacles to implementation. One being, of course, converting the new concepts’ principles to practicality, functionality, and return-on-investment.

As for implementing a ‘circular economy’, in the absence of a fully integrated and supportive (circular) ecosystem, obstacles abound. Admittedly, obstacles-impediments, cynical or otherwise, can manifest on multiple levels, e.g., actually applying ‘circularity’ to each facet of their company in terms of product (tangible-physical asset) development, acquisition, production, renovation, and destruction.

On the other hand, through my admittedly, IA (intangible asset) influenced lens, the concept of ‘circularity’ produces a natural relevance for articulating the contributory role and value of IA’s (intangible assets) to a company and/or business vis-a-vis the globally universal economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, competitiveness, and sustainability lie in – derive directly from IA’s.

By design, a circular economy (macro) is restorative and regenerative insofar as keeping products, components, and materials, i.e., both tangible and intangible assets, at their highest utility and value throughout their respective value – functionality life cycle. Obviously, restructuring entire economies to become (more) ‘circular’ would, with little, or no challenge, deliver significant environmental benefits. Too, proponents of a circular economy encourage companies to seek ways for retaining more of the value of the materials (tangible asset inputs), energy, and labor (intangible asset inputs) that go into their products. (This was adapted by Michael D. Moberly from the work of McKinsey alumnus Markus Zils.)

Interestingly, the EU (European Union) is characterized as being in the transformational midst of a ‘circular economy’ influenced by numerous actions, one being ‘Cradle to Cradle’ which represents a cross-sectoral socio-economic system which is absent (convential) linearally-based economic principles. Instead, a ‘circular economy’ relies on concepts-princples whose primary purpose is to wholly correct what are characterized as the ‘unfixable errors embedded in linear (economic) systems’. During EU’s period of transformation (to a circular economy) business leadership and management teams are obliged to develop strategies that lead to its ultimate application, among them being, continuing to design high-quality products, but include – address…

• the use of renewable energy and effective water management.
• social equity.

Real innovation and effectiveness, ala application of a circular economy, will, proponents note, lead to increases in (people) prosperity and liveability in Europe. (This was adapted by Michael D. Moberly from the work of Michael Braungart, Academic Chair “Cradle to Cradle for Innovation and Quality” RSM, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Scientific Director, EPEA)

A ‘circular economy’, as it is branded, is comprised of multiple (leadership, management) components, among them being…

• genuinely understanding, conceptually and practically, what sustainability is, its near term relevance, and accompanying mindsets and actions necessary to achieve (sustainability) across industry sectors and environments.

• learning about and from the naturally occuring elements and their individual characteristics, i.e., resources, materials, and products, etc., associated with – embedded in the development and execution of particular processes and/or functions.

• thinking, acting, and executing in contexts of…
– systems and feedback loops between, let’s say, the resources and
methodologies necessary for producing a specific product reflect durable
sustainability.
– recognizing when, where, and how ‘waste’ occurs-exists (within
particular environments), and
– creating distinct circularity (loops) between the biological and
technical materials used within a particular environment.
– ensuring product design methodologies and resources are thoroughly
embedded with (wholly) renewabable (recyclable) and/or repurposed
component

As reported in its ‘Care To Share’ blog, Royal Haskoning DHV (an independent international engineering and project management consultancy, headquartered in Amersfoort, Netherlands) rightfully gives credit to The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (UK) for bringing the ‘circular economy’ concept to the forefront and projecting it globally, through among other venues, their 2012 report titled ‘Towards the Circular Economy’.

Posts in Royal Haskoning DHV’s blog, note the ‘circular economy’ has, at least, some of its roots in earlier sustainability concepts and schools of thought, which include, Industrial Ecology (1989), Biomimicry (1997) and Cradle to Cradle (2002). Each variously include the idea of nature serving as a model to address environmental pollution and continuous growth of consumption.

So, what, in my view, is new-novel about the prospects of a ‘circular economy’ with emphasis on IA’s, is its direct linkage to business operational realities and economies wherein rising percentages of most businesses-companies value, sources of revenue, competitiveness, and wealth creation potential lie in – derive directly the ‘circularity’ applied to the development, utilization, exploitation, safeguarding, and restoration of intangible, as well as, tangible assets.

I genuinely believe there is much enlightened merit embedded in the principles of a ‘circular economy’. Be assured however, those principles are not merely millenialized verses for expressing the importance of, and necessity for, businesses to engage in advanced (material, resource) recycling initiatives. Yes, I have little doubt that executing the principles of ‘circularity’ can move companies – businesses away from the ‘circularity’ of wasteful application-use of resources to more sustainable (reusable) products and materials, because doing so, paves the way for maintaining product-brand value.

A reality embedded in a ‘circular economy’ is that success is wholly dependent on (requires) cross-sector – cross-value chain collaboration. This is the circular economy’s single greatest challenge, which at minimum will require not merely a verbal commitment, rather a mandate to execute. For those reasons, I elected to miniaturize the principles and application of ‘circular economy’ to apply to a company’s IA’s, independently. My rationale is that most company’s IA’s do not function exclusively in a linear fashion. Instead, in most circumstances, IA’s are contributory, that is, they can contribute to multiple products’ value, competitiveness, brand, etc., simultaneously. In other words, it’s certainly practical and lucrative for company leadership and management teams to recognize how their various IA’s function internally, in a circular fashion.

Deploying Intangible Asset Specific Risk Mitigators

February 23rd, 2017. Published under 'Safeguarding Intangible Assets', Managing intangible assets, Systemic Risk. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 16, 2017 ‘A intangible asset business blog where attention span really matters!

Deploying IA ‘risk mitigators’ (right time, right place, right way) can serve-benefit company leadership, management teams, and stakeholders anytime and any circumstance valuable – revenue generating – competitive advantage IA’s are in play.

Effective and timely deployment of IA specific risk mitigators provide important segues to…

• develop ‘best practices’ for managing-mitigating risk to IA’s in IA
intensive and dependent businesses.

• current regulatory (legal, accounting, taxation, and auditing) standards
and practices.

• managerial (fiduciary) responsibilities related the stewardship,
oversight, management, and safeguarding of IA’s.

• execute effective strategies for monitoring – sustaining necessary levels
of control, use, ownership, and value of IA’s.

• assess company’s exposure to costly, momentum stifling, and potentially
irreversible risks that materialize.

• recognize sustaining IA’s contributory role and value are not mere
operational electives that can be dropped, dismissed, or delayed
indefinitely.

• sustaining un-compromised control, use, and ownership of IA’s in play can
favorably differentiate a company within its sector, i.e., its
competitiveness, profitability, and sustainability

As consistently conveyed since the ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ published its initial post in May, 2006, whenever, however, and wherever valuable, revenue generating, and competitive advantage IA’s are in play, company-business leadership and management teams are obliged to consider there will be various types, levels, and motives for (IA) risks to materialize. The act of identifying – assessing IA risk and the most effective mitigation techniques and strategies, i.e., to serve as (risk) offsets and/or neutralizers, does not require leadership to reach beyond-outside their professional domains of expertise to take the necessary action.

Through my lens, perhaps the most important-relevant component to recognizing, assessing, and mitigating IA specific risk(s) is to exercise prudence to…

…avoid making purely subjective and/or arbitrary assumptions –
decisions about the IA’s in play relative to their vulnerability to risk,
value, utilization and their fragility, stability, defensibility,
liquidity.

A common denominator to IA-specific risk is the persistent presence of (global) legacy free players, ultra-sophisticated data mining operations, and economic and competitive advantage adversaries, who, by their actions and capabilities, consistently impose risk.

Intangibles, The Introverts of Business Assets!

February 23rd, 2017. Published under Intangible asset training for management teams., Intangible Asset Value. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 23, 2017 ‘A business intangible asset blog where attention span really matters’!

It’s quite ironic that it’s a globally universal economic fact that today, 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and competitive advantages derive from IA’s (intangible assets), while, at the same time, intangibles are the ‘introverts’ of every businesses suite of asset’s.

That is, IA’s are obviously neither physical, nor tangible, and unfortunately, these features-characteristics, far too often translate as, because they are not subject to the five human senses in the conventional sense, must therefore, hold little or no reportable value.

In business circumstances in which leaders and/or management teams are operationally unfamiliar with the functionality of IA’s, it’s unlikely they will (independently) rise to being recognized-accepted as contributors to a businesses’ value, competitive advantages, or as sources of revenue, etc. What’s more, when such contrarian outlooks persist, IA’s are likely to remain in subordinate and/or neglected states unless-until, that is…

• their developer-owner achieves sufficient (IA) operational familiarity to recognize, articulate, and demonstrate their worth and the necessity to sustain, cultivate, and integrate more – specialized IA’s to accommodate new business initiatives, transactions, and strategies.

• an IA strategist is invited to identify and bring the IA’s to a businesses’ operating surface where they can be acknowledged, unraveled, and assessed, and for the various ways they contribute to (business-company) value and new-additional sources of revenue and competitive advantage.

Absent either, and especially absent the business instincts and acumen to seek alternatives to ‘this is the way it’s always been done’, IA’s will unfortunately, remain relegated, at least in that company, as the proverbial wall flowers of business operability. That is, until it becomes obvious that certain assets, i.e., intangibles, have been compromised or other risks have materialized that rapidly and adversely affects the company’s reputation, revenue streams, and assessed value.

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)

Deploying Risk Mitigators For Intangible Assets

February 20th, 2017. Published under Due Diligence and Risk Assessments, Enterprise risk management., Sustainability of intangible assets.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 20, 2017 ‘A business intangible asset blog where attention span really matters’!

Deploying IA-specific ‘risk mitigators’, at the right time, to the right set of assets, and in the right manner can deliver obvious benefits, i.e., counter, prevent, and/or mitigate risk. Those are the obvious and desired outcomes. But, also, when company leadership and (risk) management teams recognize IA-specific risk mitigators are applicable-relevant to most any circumstance where valuable – revenue generating – competitive advantage producing IA’s are being developed and/or already in play, their contributory value rises accordingly.

For most business circumstances, the presence of and the potential for significant (IA specific) risk to materialize and variously jeopardize an IA-dominant undertaking or transaction is real and persistent. The initial management team action, in my judgment, preferably undertaken in advance, should be to do what is necessary to try to mitigate or prevent those risks from materializing – elevating to the point they can adversely (irreversibly) affect an outcome.

Effectively mitigating-preventing risks directed to undertakings dominated by IA’s or myriad of other business transaction circumstances, for that matter, lie in recognizing that putting risk mitigators in place, at the right time, focused on the right set of assets, i.e., those in play, and in the right manner, can deliver obvious and necessary benefits. The benefits are two-pronged, i.e., (1,) to thwart, counter, and mitigate risk, and (2.) measurably contribute to more valuable and competitive (desired) outcomes.

Those business leaders and management teams who assume risks to a IA’s can be adequately dealt with via the purchase of conventional business insurance (riders), without deploying risk mitigators, I suggest, have misread – misunderstood the current risk environment. That is, the ‘keystroke speed’ and asset-specific targeting capabilities of ultra-sophisticated and predatorial global economic and competitive advantage adversaries with advanced data mining technologies, have indeed become the norm, certainly not an anecdotal (one off) exception.

The effective and timely deployment of IA-specific risk mitigators (at the right time, right place, and right way) are businesses’ prelude to – segue for ensuring the IA’s in play remain as fully intact as possible in terms of their capability to continue to generate value, produce sources of revenue, and underlie competitive advantages.

The primary objectives to deploying IA-specific risk mitigators are to affect the assets’, and their holders’ receptivity – vulnerability to compromise and/or undermining throughout the contributory value – materiality cycle of the assets. This is best achieved when there are coordinated processes – actions in place to recognize, monitor, sustain, and acknowledge…

• asset’s exposure to costly and momentum stifling (risk) acts-events.
• IA’s contributory role and value will favorably distinguish companies
within their sector.
• necessary levels of control, use, ownership, value, equity, and resilience
for the IA’s.
• deployment of IA-specific risk mitigators are not mere operational
electives that can be dropped, dismissed, or delayed indefinitely.

As consistently conveyed since the ‘Business IP and Intangible Asset Blog’ published its initial post in May, 2006, whenever, however, and wherever valuable, revenue generating, and competitive advantage IA’s are in play, company-business leadership and management teams are obliged to consider there will be various types, levels, and motives for (IA-specific) risks to materialize.

The acts of, assessing and monitoring IA-specific risks and identifying effective techniques – strategies to prevent, mitigate, or neutralize, does not require leaders to reach beyond-outside their professional domains of expertise in order to take the necessary action.

Perhaps the most important-relevant component to IA-specific risk mitigation is to…

avoid making purely arbitrary-subjective assumptions about
circumstances when, where, how, and why particular IA’s are
in play and their vulnerability to risk, e.g., fragility,
stability, defensibility, and liquidity if-when compromised.

A common denominator to most all IA-specific risk (and, management) is the persistent presence of (global) economic and competitive advantage (legacy free) adversaries, ultra-sophisticated data mining technologies and methodologies, anyone-of-which by their actions and capabilities, impose consistent risk.

Intangible Asset Pre-Post Due Diligence

February 17th, 2017. Published under Business Transactions, Due Diligence and Risk Assessments. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 17, 2017 ‘A business intangible asset blog where attention span really matters!

Re: Mergers – Acquisitions – VC – Market Entry Planning – Litigation Support – University-Corporate Research Alliances -Organizational Resilience

Regardless of however, whenever, wherever, or why IA’s are in play (relative to the various types of transaction noted above) IA specific, and pre-post due diligence is absolutely-essential to each type-category of business undertaking and/or circumstance.

Conceptually, the purpose (intent, objective) for designing pre – post IA-specific due diligence is multi-fold…

1. It is an irreversible and globally universal economic fact (business reality) that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, and ‘building blocks’ to competitive advantage, reputation, and sustainability lie in – emerge directly from IA’s.

2. When companies, particularly ‘IA intensive and dependent’ ones engage in any type of transaction, it is highly like their IA’s will be in play.

3. A key objective of conducting both pre, and post IA due diligence is to ensure the value, revenue generation capabilities, competitive advantages, and reputation, etc., produced by the IA’s in play, are, and will remain fully intact and the risks will be known and satisfactorily mitigated on both (pre, and post) sides of the transaction.

So, in circumstances in which…

• there has been no due diligence conducted specific to the key IA’s in
play, or

• the due diligence conducted was absent specificity, i.e., was
generic, ‘one-size-fits-all’ and resembled a conventional ‘check-the-box’
(due diligence) template more relevant to physical-tangible assets than
IA’s, or

• due diligence was conducted by personnel operationally unfamiliar with…

o IA’s and their contributory role(s) to retaining transaction value,
revenue generation, competitive advantage, and reputation, etc.,

o risks specific to IA’s that will, when they materialize, adversely
affect (undermine) IA’s contributory value, competitiveness,
transaction sustainability, and likely escalate reputation risk.

In circumstances when one, all, or a variation of the above occurs, the risk portrait for both the transaction and the IA’s in play will very likely shift from the probable to the inevitable, and that’s a ‘bad thing’ for investors and transaction sustainability.

Circumstances such as this, make it all-the-more essential for companies to have expertise at the ready to conduct effective and IA specific pre-post transaction due diligence. And, also, recognize how to leverage – exploit pertinent revelations (emerging from the due diligence) to…

• provide timely – objective insight to principals, i.e., regarding the
status, stability, fragility, defensibility, and sustainability of key
IA’s in play.

• serve as legitimate entrée for re-negotiating transaction terms, i.e.,
o increase probability transaction party will be positioned to hand-off
more valuable, uncontested, and competitive IA’s.
o reduce probability of incurring time consuming, costly, and momentum
stifling disputes that undermine IA contributory value and competitive
advantages.

• elevate principle’s confidence in invest-don’t invest, buy-don’t buy
decisions.

• ensure legitimacy-authenticity of the origins, ownership, contributory
value, and competitive advantages of the IA’s in play.

• determine why, how, who, and when the IA’s in play were targeted, risks
attached and materialized, and asset value-competitive advantage
hemorrhaging commenced, and by how much.

Thresholds – Tolerances For IA Risk Management…

February 16th, 2017. Published under 'Safeguarding Intangible Assets', Intangible asset risk tolerances and thresholds.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 15, 2017 ‘A business intangible asset blog where attention span really matters’!

The manner-in-which companies – businesses, and their leadership, approach, prepare for, and ultimately respond to the potential for and/or the materialization of risk(s) to their IA’s, as one may expect, varies considerably. Practically speaking, I find the most significant variable is learning whether business leaders I have engaged even conceive of risk (exposure) in threshold or tolerance contexts. With little doubt, there is far more attention paid to the cost of premiums and total dollar limits to the occurrence of a specific adverse event. So, it becomes more of a matter of business-company leadership equating or assuming their threshold and/or tolerance for risk is reflected in the insurance plan and/or insurer in which they have struck a deal. However, truth-be-told, in a large percentage of conversations between insurers and insureds, the words ‘intangible assets’ seldom, if ever, are a distinct-separate aspect to such discussions.

Of course, there is a percentage of forward looking – thinking business leaders and management teams who recognize the absolute importance of anticipating and trying to mitigate IA-specific risk, which is what we are about here. After all, it is economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value, sources of revenue, competitive advantage, and reputation lie in – emerge directly from IA’s. Experience suggests however, that IA specific risk, if-when it is distinguished from other (general) types-categories of risk, many of which remain fixated on tangible-physical assets, is likely to be-a-reflection of and addressed relative to (subjectively) pre-determined (risk) thresholds and/or tolerances of insurers and underwriters. This conventional approach of course, is generally weighted toward the type and content of a company’s physical-tangible products and services vs. the contributions of intangibles.

It is after all, the manner-in-which the company’s IA’s are integrated and applied to those products and/or services that individually or collectively elevate their value, competitiveness, and revenue generation capacity. Ironically, it is those same intangible features and characteristics, i.e., inputs, which simultaneously find attractivity-appeal to global cadres of ultra-sophisticated economic and competitive advantage adversaries.
This leads to another facet of IA risk management which is emerging with consistent frequency and is a consequence of a management team’s felt obligation and/or necessity to ‘get to the market space first’ with their innovation, product, or service. In other words, the go fast, go hard, go global phenomenon is itself a driver of risk to IA’s. In these circumstances, risk is likely to materialize at a very rapid pace commensurate with the accelerated investment, innovation, and product development-launch cycles, etc., which are necessary to the race to be first. Therefore, IA risk is indeed relevant to the globally predatorial and ‘legacy free’ entities, operating at each stage of product-service development functions, which includes drawing economic-competitive advantage information from targeted-companies’ value, supply, and distribution chains, which…

• adversely affects the fragility, stability, and defensibility of
(targeted) IA’s.

• renders IA’s more distinguishable and thus, their content, more vulnerable
to (specific, targeted) compromise, infringement, competitive advantage
undermining, and value dilution.

• creates more fertile ground for reputation risk(s) to materialize.

Still, another (third) facet of IA-specific risk management lies within company leadership who (mistakenly) assume IA’s constitute infinite resources which are readily and fully renewable, retrievable, recapturable should they be subject to compromise, infringement, or undermining, etc. Those holding such perspectives usually find fewer distinctions between IA’s and tangible assets, even, sometimes, espousing the former are mere extensions of the latter which presumably can be repaired, restored, and returned to productive – operational status in relatively brief periods of time following an adverse act or event. In this reality, IA’s exist primarily-variously in the form of intellectual, structural, and/or relationship capital and often are more fragile and diverse. Thus IA’s tend to be more challenging, costly, and time consuming to replicate, i.e., develop and exploit in a manner that is equally collaborative, competitive, and profitable as before.

For these reasons, I am suggesting, it would be prudent to characterize any one, or combination of the risk management issues cited above, not in contexts of if, rather, in context of when they will materialize and the specificity, depth, and/or breadth which the risk will manifest. Corollaries to these particular-characterizations of IA risk management is another aspect which I call ‘risk illiteracy’. I define ‘IA risk illiteracy’ as an absence of operational awareness-familiarity for the need of having, at the ready, rapid and effective mitigation – intervention measures specific to a company’s valuable and competitive advantage IA’s.
IA risks that do materialize will, in most instances, alter the parameters of a businesses’ tolerance, threshold, and literacy of risk, irrespective of a companies’ – businesses size, sector, maturity, and/or financial health.

To be sure, risks to IA’s, representing most all types and categories, are persistent and can materialize even in circumstances in which experienced and talented management teams are in the lead. Of course, a percentage of business leaders, whether they acknowledge it, or not, signal their thresholds and/or tolerances for risk to the IA’s under their (company’s) control, use, and ownership. Of late, this is especially relevant to IA risks that can materialize at ‘keystroke speed’ to adversely impact (product-service) value, revenue, competitive advantages, sustainability, and equity, ala reputation risks.

Ultimately, a company’s thresholds-tolerances for IA risk, which each presumably signals or establishes, should never be of the one-size-fits-all variety. That’s because, in large part, the materiality of IA’s can fluctuate, ala their fragility, defensibility, sustainability, and contributory values. Instead, company leadership and management teams are obliged to consider (assess – factor) IA risk management variables such as…

• speed of (risk) materialization and its expansion – embeddedness
throughout an enterprise.

• criticality of risks to all or specific parts/units of a company and its
products and services.

• a company’s current capabilities and speed which it can mitigate –
neutralize risk(s).

• a company’s overall resiliency, ala recuperative capabilities as a target
of a materialized risk vis-à-vis customers, clients, consumers, and
suppliers, etc.

As such, business leadership and management teams are obliged to approach and engage IA risk mitigation and management as integral to structuring (engaging, undertaking, negotiating, and executing) any new business initiative, transaction, product-service rollout, R&D, etc.

Intangible Assets Integral to Transaction Negotiation Strategy

February 14th, 2017. Published under Business Transactions, Intangible asset strategy, Transaction negotiations and intangible assets.. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 14, 2017 A business blog where attention span really matters!

Management teams’ who commence negotiating a business transaction based on a strategy which has been framed predominantly, if not solely, on the content of a (conventional) balance sheet and/or financial statement, which as noted here, are variously dismissive of – omit acknowledging contributory role, value, and competitive advantages produced by IA’s (intangible assets) will lead (unnecessarily) to impasses and/or ‘walk-aways’. Both rise in probability when either party enters a negotiation absent benefits of being operationally familiar with the IA’s that will inevitably be in play!

True, IA’s are seldom, if ever reported (accounted for) in conventional financial statements, balance sheets, or valuations. Such omissions (under or non-reporting of IA’s) are tolerated because accountants, auditors, valuators, tax, and legal sectors are obliged to interpret – report IA’s in accordance with the various standards-statutes set forth by relevant state-federal regulatory-oversight bodies, academic disciplines, and professional association certification. Operationally, these obligations, given their origins in statutes and standards, translate as predispositions to conceive- apply IA’s in quite narrow contexts, and perhaps worse, are likely to be characterized as mere conglomerations of undifferentiated goodwill. Please note, for the record, ‘goodwill’ is but one (single) type or category of IA.

Of course, those perspectives about IA’s stand apart from the broader – more expansive context for addressing – executing on IA’s espoused here which solidly originate in the economic fact – business reality that 80+% of most company’s value and sources of revenue, etc., lie in – emerge directly from IA’s. This economic fact should not go in-noticed or under-estimated, particularly when negotiating most any transactions’ value, competitive advantages, sector standing, and future performance.

Achieving operational familiarity with IA’s in advance, warrants attention here and now because anyone with responsibility for negotiating a business transaction, but commence it, absent familiarity with IA’s will surely find themselves, and whomever they represent, negotiating with an incomplete portrait of the other parties assets, how those assets will be (are) in play, and can influence (negotiation, transaction) outcomes, i.e., success, sustainability, and profitability, or failure. This oversight (neglect, dismissiveness) can also serve (unnecessarily) as entrees upon which (negotiation) confusion, distortions, unsubstantiated generalities, impasses, and walk-aways will undoubtedly occur.

So, in my judgment, business leadership and management teams that have achieved IA operational familiarity in advance of a transaction overture, i.e., they recognize the presence, contributory role, value, and competitive advantages produced by IA’s, will clearly have a strategic (lucrative, competitive) advantage. This is particularly apropos as growing percentages of industry, trade, and commerce, globally, originate from IA intensive and dependent businesses.

With respectful confidence, the clarity, differentiation, performance measuring, and valuing of IA’s advocated here and recognized as (transaction) negotiation requisites, will sure to lead to more lucrative, competitive, and sustainable (project, transaction) outcomes, whenever, however, or wherever IA’s, are in play.

On the other hand, when-if transaction negotiations, preliminary or otherwise, are undertaken absent leadership-management team acknowledgement for IA development, contributory value, competitive advantage, materiality, and risk, etc., will likely experience outcomes that produce substantially less value, revenue, competitiveness, and sustainability that projected and desired, which frequently translates as some level of failure and unnecessary squandering of resources with little or no return.

Prudent objectives for business leadership and transaction negotiation management teams are to…

• acquire sufficient operational familiarity with key (operational) IA’s of
their firm, but equally important, the firm(s) in which interest is being
exhibited.

• of course, learning how to do this objectively and distinguish
the relevant from the irrelevant are essential in terms of efficiency,
effectiveness, and framing strategy-tactics and values.

Respectfully, it’s worth noting again, if IA’s are omitted, dismissed, or otherwise deemed irrelevant to a (business transaction) negotiation in which IA’s and tangible-physical assets will be bought, sold, traded, etc., but subordinates the IA’s in play to convention and/or past practice, it’s likely outcomes will be measurably less lucrative, competitive, and sustainable, but carry higher risks, as they otherwise could.

On the other hand, correctly identifying IA’s in play, whether it is for strategic-tactical planning, decision making, and/or negotiations are not responsibilities relevant only to Fortune-ranked firms. Instead, IA’s play clear and important roles in small and medium-sized companies, businesses, and start-ups!

Intangible Asset Side of Business Habituation Can Be An Impediment

February 13th, 2017. Published under Fiduciary Responsibility, Intangible asset training for management teams., Managing intangible assets, Uncategorized. No Comments.

Michael D. Moberly February 13, 2017 A business blog about intangible assets where attention span really matters!

Business acumen acquired from – retained through personal experience permits most of us to ‘encode’ repetitive activities and processes (we engage in) as habits, which, in turn, allows us to free up ‘brain space’ to learn new things. This encoding process is referred to as habituation.

Habituation however, may not always translate – manifest as (business) improvements, new practices, or creating much needed efficiencies. Instead, in its extreme, ‘habituation’ that manifests as unquestioned adherence – attachment to perpetuating past practice and/or convention, without considering some may be variously obsolete, nearing irrelevance, or wholly uncompetitive, can, quite literally, push economic realities, ala IA’s, off ‘the proverbial table’ and strategic planning radar screens to be obstructions to business competitiveness, sustainability, and viable paths to creating value and (new, additional) sources of revenue.

When one recognizes how to differentiate habitual (sometimes trivial) details from those which are genuinely relevant, competitive, and value-revenue creating, ala IA-related, vs. merely continuing to approach-execute certain practices and/or processes because ‘we have always done it this way’ (with no intent-desire to change) is habituation, perhaps in its most extreme form.

There are many good and relevant reasons why we (our brains, personalities) are receptive to habituation. One is, if habituation were absent, proponents would argue we would likely be destined to consistently taking notice of and acting on relatively inconsequential minutia – details of work. Doing so would likely impede, if not limit our work effectiveness and efficiency. That’s because, presumably it would leave little time or inclination to notice or learn new things, i.e., change that could favorably affect the way we approach, engage, execute (our) work-job.

A relevant, all-be-it comedic example of this is (comedian) Jerry Seinfeld’s career which his followers recognize has largely been built on making light of the supercilious minutia of life behaviors and processes which most of us accept and comply with as mere unquestioned realities, i.e., this is the way someone decided it should be done, and it may never rise to a level that prompts us to question why!

Yes, it’s a generalization, but, many successful business persons, are often ‘wired’ to not just notice changes in habits, life expectations, and tolerance, and re-cast them in question contexts, i.e., ‘what could be’? For example, ask, what product-service could be developed, reconfigured, modified, etc., to ‘scratch an itch’ affecting significant and diverse percentages of populations, how much will it cost to produce and market, how quickly can it be brought to market, and what are the risks of doing so, and, if so, what, when, where, and how will they materialize?

These, so-called ‘wired’ individuals, often go multiple steps insofar as anticipating, seeking, embracing, and internalizing change, and how to translate same to develop, monetize, and commercialize discoveries, technologies, and products, embedded with IA’s, often, long before it materializes in a Jerry Seinfeld comedy sketch. Wired individuals are inclined to recognize-distinguish ‘benefits and beneficiaries’ in futuristic contexts vs. recognizing its existence and affects after the fact.

In one sense, this-is-why I frequently characterize my work, as strangely as this may appear to some, as consistently viewing business-company operability through an intangible asset lens. More specifically, during engagements, I respectfully examine actions and perspectives conveyed by business leadership and company management teams in the context of how, why, where, when, and circumstances in which (their) IA’s are used – leveraged (or, not) and how either impacts or contributes to a specific outcome favorably or unfavorably.

It’s not particularly challenging, I find, for business pundits to equate (critique) a company’s missteps or miscues subjectively as missed opportunities. On the other hand, it’s substantially more challenging to correctly define and collaboratively resolve challenges – risks related to business value, sources of revenue, competitive advantages, and reputation that originate – are embedded in non-physical (intangible) assets, which, irrespective of their contributory value, are seldom, if ever, mentioned.

So, when I am engaged with-by clients and companies about their IA’s, i.e., to facilitate-enable lucrative and competitive treatments-applications, I recognize, respectfully so, there have likely been multiple and various circumstances arise previously that singularly or collectively elevated awareness and importance of particular-IA’s. When this occurs, it allows those experiencing – achieving IA operational familiarity, substantially and operationally, better positioned to recognize-examine their IA circumstances to determine if such preludes were and remain present, i.e., determine-assess if, when, where, and how IA’s are being acknowledged and utilized effectively, lucratively, and competitively.

Why am I addressing this? It’s because forward looking-thinking business leaders and management teams are becoming more adept at recognizing – distinguishing processes, initiatives, risk, transactions, and challenges, etc., through IA lens, all-be-it often filtered through conventional sense of (tangible asset) physicality. In the pre-knowledge worker era, obviously previous-to recognizing IA’s contributory role and value to businesses and companies, it was largely assumed that innovation, transaction success, mitigating risks, and/or resolving challenges could be accomplished by simpler (physical) techniques, e.g., deciding which knobs needed adjusting, which screws needed tightening, or which moving parts needed lubrication, etc. In other words, physical methodologies were routinely attached to both the execution and resolution side.

Today, however, it’s a globally universal economic fact that 80+% of most company’s value (sources of revenue, competitive advantage, etc.) lie in – evolve directly from IA’s. A logical extension of this economic fact is that the value and/or pricing of a transaction is reflected in the IA’s in play. This has relevance on several levels, perhaps the most significant is the necessity for business leadership – management teams to recognize the intangible (invisible – non-physical) elements in value, competitiveness, and sustainability, etc., and address them accordingly. (The above was substantially modified by Michael D. Moberly from Tony Fadel’s, March 2015, TEDTalk titled ‘The first secret of design, is noticing’.)