Readers need not look far to discover numerous examples of investments in early-stage R&D businesses, that for various reasons ‘went South’ and delivered either no or perhaps minimal ROI.

I find that some of the usual methods – strategies investors rely-apply for the all-important commitment of capital to an early-stage (R&D dependent-reliant) business, characterize the R&D in broad, undifferentiated contexts, i.e., conclusive culminations.

Portraying early-stage R&D in this manner can lead to the most valuable, foundational, competitive advantage, and commercial-izable components undifferentiated and under-appreciated contributors to commercialization strategy and objectives.

Portraying early-stage R&D in this manner can lead to the most valuable, foundational, competitive advantage, and commercial-izable components undifferentiated and under-appreciated contributors to commercialization strategy and objectives.

Oversights, like this, can render ‘investment essential’ intangible assets more receptive and vulnerable to momentum stifling and strategically disruptive challenges and/or risks.

Now investors are obliged to recognize that challenges – risks to investment essential intangible assets can materialize at the nefarious will, shouts, and timing of others, globally.

In other words, undermining – stifling investments in early-stage R&D dependent businesses may not only be influenced by commercialization forecasts and appeal of innovative (game changing) products, services, or efficiencies.

Each investor and investment is now obliged to unravel, measure and monitor the contributory roles and value adds that are produced by – stem from various forms, contexts, and applications of unique, often proprietary, and certainly valuable intangible assets, particularly…

1. intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
2. structural capital (processes, procedures), and
3. relationship capital (associations, alliances) routinely embedded in R&D

Recognizing the importance of differentiating each of the above and incorporating the distinctions as ‘investment essential’ brings much needed awareness to and strategy for mitigating probable challenges and/or risks which, should either occur, can adversely affect ROI. Unequivocally, moderating – mitigating vulnerability, probability, and critically of challenges and risks to ‘investment essential’ intangible assets is always a good thing.

So too is recognizing that the development, contributory roles, and value adds produced by R&D’s foundational and investment essential intellectual, structural, and relationship capital at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost, can elevate – sustain commercial and competitive advantages attributable to most forms of innovation, that I am familiar over several decades.

Conveying dismissiveness to these ‘investment essentials and principles, perhaps in favor of or loyalty to a time-honored or dated practice, may periodically serve investors as hoped.

Too, overlooking or dismissing ‘investment essential’ intangible assets can elevate, if not attract challenges and risks to materialize asymmetrically, at the will and timing of others globally, and intended to stifle, detract, misinform, depreciate, and undermine.

Otherwise, acknowledging ‘investment essentials’ as (fiduciary) obligations to appreciate why, how, when, which, and where unraveling, safeguarding, and mitigating risks and challenges to ‘investment essential’ intangible assets, will consistently benefit investors and investments.

Again, investors need not look far to find numerous, current, and relevant examples of investments in early-stage and R&D dependent businesses, go south.  As I describe here, investors – investments which differentiate the foundational intangible assets in play are more likely to go north, not south.

My interests in and rationale for drawing business leaders and investors’ attention to ‘investment essential’ intangible assets is that today, and for the foreseeable future, most businesses irrespective of size, sector, stage, sales, maturation, location, valuation, revenue generation capability, and reputation; their innovations, products, services and operating culture, etc., are irreversibly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

Thank you for visiting the Business Intangible Asset Blog.

The post When Investing in Early-Stage R&D, Don’t Overlook ‘Investment Essential’ Intangible Assets… first appeared on kpstrat.

As a longtime business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator, I still find numerous perceptions of and approaches to addressing business risks by leaders, management teams, boards, and investors fall short.

That is, many intuitive perceptions of risk and methods for risk avoidance, mitigation, and recovery were born in earlier eras in which businesses were largely dependent on creating, buying, holding, and applying physical – tangible assets.

Equipment, machines, structures, and means to acquire materials, manufacture, and transport products are readily observable, touchable, discernable, manufacturable, countable, monitorable, and trackable from raw material to end user throughout value-supply chains.

Accordingly, business leaders’ projections for and differentiation – mitigation of, and insuring against risk, were largely rooted in experiential gauging (best guesstimates) of the vulnerability, probability, criticality, and recoverability of tangible – physical assets which a business held, used, and relied.

Such perceptions and characterizations of business risk, primarily to businesses tangible-physical assets, translated (over years) as standards and/or benchmarks across sectors which conveyed little, if any recognition – appreciation for the growing presence and reliance on the expanding intensity and value-ability of business things intangible.

Unfortunately, many perceptions about business risk as well as recognition, strategic planning and decision-making relative to avoidance, mitigation, and recovery remain rooted perspectives and concepts wherein businesses relied – depended almost wholly on tangible – physical types of assets.

The ‘mission essentiality’ that business leaders, management teams, innovators, R&D administrators, and investors adjust perceptions about where, when, which, how, why risks emerge and materialize, now asymmetrically at key stroke speeds

Lamentably, seldom do I find conventionally framed perceptions of and approaches for mitigating risks to business’s tangible-physical assets (largely developed in previous eras) necessarily, or sufficiently inclusive of present-day asymmetric risks, deliverable at the will and timing of ideological, political, and/or economic ‘others’ seeking some variation of advantage.

Through the ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ which I founded and author, and other direct means, the intent is to respectfully bring present-day experiential-based clarity and attention to these economic and competitive advantage realities…

• developing and sustainably operating most/more businesses irrespective of sector, size, stage of development, maturation, location, products, services, and/or R&D dependency,
• 80+/-% of their brand valuation, reputation, operating culture, competitiveness, revenue generation capability, and the resilience, and sustainability of each are (increasingly, irreversibly, and measurably) intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post How Business Perceptions of Risk Matter and Why ‘Updates’ Are Necessary… first appeared on kpstrat.

Over two decades of serving businesses, management teams, R&D entrepreneurial ventures, and investors in the unique capacity of business intangible asset strategist – risk mitigator, seldom do I arrive for discussions with parties holding familiarity – practicing strategies specific to the intangible assets they have likely developed, hold as proprietary, and consistently use and rely.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, most businesses irrespective of sector, size, sales, stage of development/maturation, location, products or services, are increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

The distinguishable appeal of businesses brand, product, service, reputation, and operating culture, etc., which convert to valuation, revenue generation capability, and sustainability, etc., depend – derive from developing and introducing the right sets of intangible assets, at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost.

To date, my research, writing, publishing, and engagements have focus primarily on those assets ‘mission essentiality’. That is, I respectfully demonstrate perspectives to distinguish – measure the contributory roles and value adds of business specific intangibles, i.e., if, how, when, and where.

This permits me to legitimately distinguish business’s mission essential intangible assets as primarily originating – existing in various forms, contexts, and applications of unique…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
• structural capital (processes, procedures).
• relationship capital (alliances, partnerships, coalitions)

The distinguishable contributions of either form of intangible asset (above) make (individually, collectively, collaboratively) to a business’s valuation, revenue generation capability, competitiveness, and reputation-brand, are increasingly vulnerable to arrays of at will risks and intimidating shouts, shouting, and shouters.  “Business Reputation Assassinations…”

For businesses (nationally – internationally) which my work and interests have granted familiarity and insight, the sudden materialization and various ways and venues/platforms which business adversities, malicious accusations, and/or revelations of suspected misdeeds, indiscretions, and/or ethical lapses are publicly translated at keystroke speeds can stifle momentum, demoralize operating cultures, undermine R&D initiatives, weaken valuation, and suppress appeal of products, services, and brands. “Business Operating Cultures Are Intangible Asset Intensive…”

Leaders whose experiences to contend some variation of the following…

• adverse effects of risks insofar as undermining ‘mission essential’ intangible assets are likely to be short-lived and wholly recoverable, and/or,
• affected intangibles can be readily and effectively replicated if-when necessary to permit a rapid recovery, are encouraged to read further.

Respectfully, readers need not look far to recognize contentions and strategies based on either, warrant reconsideration.

Today, the asymmetric origins, features, rationales, and tracks which risks-threats-intimidations-inuendo can emerge, be translated, expressed, and reiterated at the will and timing of others via platforms and venues of preference, is obliged to be reflected in distinguishable techniques and strategies designed to avoid, defend, as well as mitigate (vulnerability-probability-criticality) of risks materializing to impact businesses ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

 Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post Risks to ‘Mission Essential’ Intangible Assets Held By Businesses… first appeared on kpstrat.

Ensuring the reputation of investment essential intangible assets is reliable, resilient, sustainable, and unchallengeable, is central to venture capital investment strategy and outcomes.

This includes startups, early-stage companies, corporate-university collaborations, and/or incubator initiatives whose reputations attract venture capital while be even more intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant (for developing innovations irrespective of sector or stage of (R&D) maturation.

Importantly then, this post describes how – why the above are fundamental to…

• pursuing a timely, insightful, replicable, efficient, and competitively advantageous facets to venture capital due diligence practice that unfortunately, are often misunderstood and/or overlooked.
• differentiating, assessing, and sustaining same and their various contributory roles, value adds that effect investment strategies and outcomes.

Familiarity with these early-stage company development, operation, and economic realities, i.e., dependence-reliance on business things intangible, etc., can lead to more objective – strategic assessments of ‘reputation attraction’.

That’s because they include factors such as startups’ operating culture and leadership, intangible asset and IP safeguards, risk mitigation, and challenges which can affect projections of and strategies to ensure innovation standing, competitiveness, revenue generation capability, valuation, and sustainability converge.

The objective is to contribute to – deliver desired investment strategies and outcomes in manageable time frames with less vulnerability, probability, and criticality to the materialization of unforeseen risk or momentum stifling challenges.

It’s important to recognize that each ‘investment reputation’ lies in and emerges from unique forms, contexts, collaborations, and applications of the right sets (forms, contexts, applications) of intangible assets developed, introduced, and applied at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost. e.g.,

• intellectual capital, e.g., knowledge, knowhow (IC)
• structural capital, e.g., processes, procedures (SC) and
• relationship capital, e.g., associations, alliances, interactions (RC).

The successful and investable development of early-stage innovation, and rationales-strategies for favorable outcomes, are inextricably dependent on business things intangible aid VC communities to distinguish investment decisions and strategies by

• differentiating, unraveling, assessing, monitoring, safeguarding, and mitigating risk to the ‘reputational standing’ of invested intangible assets.

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post Does Your Venture Capital Due Diligence Include ‘Reputation’ of Essential Intangible Assets? first appeared on kpstrat.

Safeguarding – mitigating risk to business’s often proprietary intangible assets, e.g., unique and valuable knowledge and know-how, are essential contributors to sustainable successes.

Today, businesses are increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant. irrespective of sector, size, stage, sales, products, or services

This influences business success to be portrayed not solely in contexts of revenue generation and valuation, but also in measures of reputation, competitiveness, attractivity for investment, and operating culture, etc., the intangible (non-physical) contributions to balance sheets.

There are fifteen types – categories of intangible assets (including IP) which I encourage familiarity for all business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors. What Are Intangible Assets? – kpstrat

Familiarity is obliged to include differentiating businesses ‘mission essential’ intangible assets which often originate internally and are considered proprietary as unique forms, contexts, and/or applications of…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
• structural capital (processes, procedures), and/or
• relationship capital (alliances, interactions, associations)
  • which frequently are intended to be business, brand, product, and/or service specific.

‘Mission essential’ intangible assets are observable in every business which I am familiar whether they are recognized as such, or not. Particular-intangible assets, which are distinguished as mission essential convey which, how, when, where, and why they serve as foundational underliers and measurable contributors to a business’s successes.

Mission essential intangible assets favorably differentiate a business, economically, operationally, competitively, and culturally, etc., relative to the demand for and value of its products, services, brand, reputation, image, and goodwill, etc.

Let there be little debate, on this matter, these universal business economic facts and operational realities, having to do with intangible asset intensity, dependency, and reliance translates to…

• 70-80+% of most business’s competitiveness, innovation, revenue generation capability, reputation, valuation, and sustainability, lie in – emerge directly from non-physical (intangible) assets, and less from tangible-physical-fixed assets.

This business transition of more reliance on intangible – non-physical assets and less reliance on conventional tangible-physical-fixed assets was initially described in Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

Today, and for the foreseeable future, business-brand specific (mission essential) intangible assets are less likely to be available for purchase – application in conventional off-the-shelf contexts. Instead, the much-needed inputs of particular-intangible assets which are frequently capable of being developed and applied internally, proprietarily, and then perhaps portrayed in some ‘trade secrecy’ context.

However, a mere designation of proprietary or ‘trade secrecy’ are not self-enforcing nor does either serve as sufficient or stand-alone deterrents to the nefarious.

Preferably, business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets should be subject to monitorable and maneuverable safeguards and risk mitigation. Doing so, can position same for sustained (long term) economic – competitive advantage benefit, and be legitimately measured as valuable and measurable contributors throughout their respective life-value cycle.

As such, most business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets are legitimate, measurable, reliable, and strategic barometers – differentiators that warrant reader familiarity.

Unfortunately, internally developed – applied intangible assets (e.g., knowledge, knowhow, etc.) are seldom treated as proprietary.

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post Why Business’s Should Safeguard – Mitigate Risk to Their Proprietary Knowhow… first appeared on kpstrat.

A business’s operating culture is an important factor to examine – assess for venture capital invest – don’t invest decisions.  Business operating cultures are publicly exhibited – conveyed to reflect brand, image, goodwill, resiliency, and mission, etc.

Through my lens, as a business intangible asset strategist operating cultures reflect collections of intangible assets, e.g., various forms, contexts, and applications of…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
• structural capital (processes, procedures), and
• relationship capital (alliances, interactions, associations)

that convey which, who, how, why, when, and where ‘things are to be done’.

Unfortunately, business operating cultures are frequently overlooked factors to (venture capital) investments even though ‘operating culture’ is particularly relevant to innovation developed – held by startup – early-stage R&D businesses. Business Operating Cultures Are Intangible Asset Intensive… – kpstrat

Overlooking – being dismissive of business operating cultures leaves the contributory roles – value adds exhibited, aside from ‘those conducting pitches’ to be un-under-appreciated and un-under-valued. That is, unless – until risks, hiccups, and/or challenges emerge post-investment to undermine a business’s innovation and potential for success.

It’s important to note this post is not necessarily intended draw the attention of Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Dragoneer, or New Enterprise, the largest venture capital firms in the U.S.

Preferably instead, this post is intended to resonate with the hundreds of small – medium size investment (venture capital) firms now operating in the U.S. which focus on innovations to consider investing. How US venture capital has grown in the last 15 years (omaha.com)

To highlight this, readers are encouraged to consider that today and for the foreseeable, across sectors, 70-80+% of most business’s valuation, revenue generation capability, competitiveness, reputation, and sustainability lie in – emerge directly from intangible (non-physical) assets, less from tangible-physical-fixed assets. Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

This translates as sustainable – profitable business operating cultures are frequently interwoven collections of the right intangible assets being developed, in the right way, at the right cost, and introduced at the right time.

Through various national-international experiences and engagements on matters related to business things intangible across business sectors, irrespective of size, stage, sales, products, or services, and attending many venture capital forums as a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator. I have heard many glowing pitches, projections, and innocent notions about the significance of IP. Papers – kpstrat

Collectively, these experiences have influenced me to conclude that ‘business operating cultures’ are often overlooked components to investment success (vs failure). About Us – kpstrat

Operating cultures, in my judgement, are essential underpinnings to advancing – sustaining startups and early-stage businesses to become viable, sustainable, valuable, competitive, revenue generating, and ‘maturing’ enterprises.

With little debate, the more favorable each ‘descriptor’ (above) is, investment ROI probabilities are more likely to rise.   What’s The Value of Your Business’s Operating Culture? – kpstrat

Absent familiarity with a business’s operating culture and unraveling the array of risks, hiccups, and challenges which can materializes and adversely affect the ‘mission essential’ intangible assets investors prize, embarrassing realities affecting investment outcomes and reputations can emerge and cascade.

It matters how operating cultures characterize, treat, and envision how-when-where their innovation can actually contribute to business valuation, competitiveness, sustainability, durability, resilience, and revenue generation capabilities.

Investments by regional investors in small-medium size early-stage R&D and innovation will emerge for public review via attractive pitches – projections for realizing substantial ROI, providing of course that all goes well.

Investors are also obliged to recognize that despite confident pitches, projections, and portraits of relevant IP, each can be authenticated via ‘desktop’ research, and then debated in invest – don’t invest contexts.

Even well-honed prospective investment ‘assessment scorecards’ frequently frame operating cultures relative to individual leaders and/or founders respective drive and influence to ‘make it happen’. While the abilities of either are important, the broader context of operating culture may ‘describe what needs to be unraveled to reasonably ensure success.’

Still, most investment decisions come with arrays of vulnerabilities, probabilities, and criticalities in which ‘mission essential’ intangible assets may be at risk. This warrants candid and experienced examination throughout an operating culture.

Today, the v-p-c of risks materializing to adversely affect invested innovations can be qualitatively – quantitatively portrayed. As such, business operating culture’s receptivity to, as well as role and contribution to deter and/or mitigate risks warrant consideration.

Afterall, business operating cultures are important – consistent players in startup – early-stage business durability, sustainability, and investment attractivity. Preferably, discussions – examinations of business operating cultures occur in ‘up close and personal’ contexts, and not left to conjecture.

It’s important to consider the attractivity of a particular investment may be ‘pitched and marketed,’ However, loud accusations of alleged flaws to the underlying research and application – commercialization chain will affect key – mission essential intangible assets, including reputations.

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

 The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

 Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post Venture Capital Investments Should Factor Operating Cultures… first appeared on kpstrat.

For most businesses it is not particularly challenging for customers to notice (sense, perceive) the intangible of a business’ operating culture.

Business – institution operating cultures, as readers know, can be interwoven and embedded collections – collaborations of appealing intangible assets, or interpreted as conveying unappealing intangible liabilities.

• As an asset, operating cultures can be attractive, inspiring, productive, and serve as value laden differentiators and contributors to/for the valuation, reputation, competitiveness, resilience, revenue generation capability, and wealth creation potential of a business or institution.
• As a liability, on the other hand, operating cultures can be perceived as conveying uncomplimentary reflections of a business’s reputation, i.e., uninviting, unaccommodating, and perhaps, too convention laden. Collectively, such generally adverse perceptions render most businesses less maneuverable and resilient.

Some obvious reasons for either are business operating cultures are experience-able, that is, they can be personally felt, heard, observed, talked about, and ‘first impressions’ are often significant and memorable.

I have observed business operating cultures to be circumstantially compelling, managerially engrossing, variously sustainable, frequently transferable, and occasionally generational.

Let there be no mistake, business – institution operating cultures are interwoven – embedded collections – collaborations of intangible assets, e.g., various forms, contexts, and applications of ‘dual use’…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow)
• structural capital (processes, procedures)
• relationship capital (alliances, associations, etc.) – Please review 15+ types/categories and examples of intangible assets @ Home – kpstrat

At this juncture, it’s especially important to recognize most-more businesses today, irrespective of their sector, size, stage, mission, products, or services, etc., are increasingly and irreversibly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

Therefore, I encourage readers to favorably consider this universal business economic – operational reality…

• 70-80+% of most business’s valuation, revenue generation capability, competitiveness, reputation, and sustainability lie in – emerge directly from intangible assets. Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

In this context, and as a business intangible asset strategist, it is disheartening to learn about or observe businesses via their leadership, management teams, and boards, et al, appearing to not overtly – publicly attach import to and/or be attentive to the very explicit contributory roles – value adds that drive – influence operating cultures.

Admittedly, these perspectives may seem, to some, as narrow in the sense they perhaps apply most to circumstances in which one may have (a.) choice or options to do business elsewhere, and/or (b.) if-when one feels slighted or is turned off by an operating culture they experience or learn about, they may go elsewhere.

Interestingly though, the sensory advantage of feeling slighted, or being personally disgusted may become variously anesthetized due to practicalities and realities in play which render choice and slights, less important, at least in the near term.

In some instances, practicalities – realities may influence one to feel compelled or obliged to be less sensitive and more receptive to disregarding particular – aspects of an operating culture. In part, that may be because it’s probable same-similar, or variations will be encountered elsewhere and repeatedly, ala I don’t like it, but I have to deal with it.

Too, Professors Cameron and Quinn developed an Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) which consists of four ‘competing values’ that correspond with four types of organizational culture below. Organizational cultures typology of Cameron and Quinn (1999) | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)

Every organization (Cameron and Quinn note) has its own combination of these four types of organizational cultures, The 4 types of corporate culture, explained – Work Life by Atlassian

This instrument is a tool that may guide business leaders, management teams, and boards to reasonably…

• describe a current operating culture, and
• understand its strengths and weaknesses, and make changes to improve performance. Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) – Big Agile (big-agile.com)

1. Clan business operating culture – refers to a type of culture that fosters a collaborative environment by accentuating-encouraging-valuing commitment, participation, and allegiance.
   • Is largely horizontal (not vertical) in structure with pods of cohesive – interdependent employees who identify, share, and align with a business’s vision – mission. Clan Culture: An Informative Guide for HR Professionals – AIHR
2. Adhocracy business operating culture – describes an approach of decentralized leadership, individual initiative, and organic decision-making. This operating culture does not rely on a rigid or necessarily convention laden practices, procedures, or authority.
3. Market business operating culture – is focused on business financial successes, e.g., meeting goals and targets. Each employee play distinctive roles insofar as reaching the business’s larger (ROI) goals. The 4 Types of Organizational Culture & Their Benefits | Built In
4. Hierarchy business operating culture – is built on shared (specific) core values, top-down (hierarchical) decision-making, and internal predictability popular among contemporary businesses. Hierarchy Culture Explained: What Is Hierarchy Culture? – 2024 – MasterClass

 Readers can also consider the following observable (intangible) elements to describe – differentiate business operating cultures I have adapted from Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) explained | OCAI (wordpress.com)

1. techniques, initiatives, data points, etc., used to maintain and/or introduce enhancements.
2. markers (daily – strategic) for emphasis and review.
3. bonding agents, e.g., essential adhesives holding operating culture together.
4. elements which render it attractive, distinctive, competitive, ambitious, and expressively innocuous and fairly defendable.
5. interest in, benefits of, difficulty for replication elsewhere.
6. probability (commitment-cost) for durability and sustainability.
7. appearance of being leader specific-durational, or condition-circumstance dependent.
8. criteria to differentiate and assess contributions to mission successes and realizing benefits.
9. influence on innovation, collaboration, proficiency, and productivity.

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

 The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

 Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post What’s The Value of Your Business’s Operating Culture? first appeared on kpstrat.

My experiences nationally, internationally, and across sectors have influenced which engagement opportunities can be framed best to benefit clients.

Engagement considerations include my regard for the evolving art and science of management and managing, and our obligations to focus on business things intangible.

I’ve had the pleasure (over many years) to observe remarkable acts of managing both intangible (non-physical) assets and tangible (physical-fixed) assets. Admittedly, most reflect and are framed through my lens as an intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator.

What’s particularly remarkable is many observations is they frequently reveal a convergence of capable and receptive individuals, who, (whether its’ recognized, understood, or not) hold – apply skill sets that reflect these economic – operation realities, i.e.,

• 70-80+% of most business’s valuation, revenue generation, competitiveness, and sustainability today lie in – emerge directly from intangible assets. Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

Often times, via respectful nudges, these capable – receptive individuals further appreciate business’ irreversible dependence – reliance on intangible (non-physical) assets.

This frequently leads to (a.) differentiating which intangible assets are ‘mission essential’, (b.) articulating (fiduciary) obligations to sustain control, use, and ownership of those assets, (c.) applying relevant safeguards and risk mitigation, and (d.) monitoring the assets contributory roles and value adds to extend their respective ‘life – value cycles’.

I’m confident readers would agree, there are various social, educational, institutional, and experiential fundamentals (conventions) which continue to underlie the art and science of managing and management.

However, the complexities and challenges associated with managing businesses today and the stewardship of ‘mission essential’ intangible assets, frequently materialize publicly. As such, it reflects on reputation, operating culture, brand, and attractivity for investment, among other things.

As conveyed in many of the 1,200+ posts published at Business Intangible Asset Blog Home – kpstrat, the art and science of management and managing today is obliged to pay consistent attention to business things intangible, especially those designated as ‘mission essential’ to/for a business, institution, or organization.

I conceived the designation ‘mission essential’ intangible assets as a (qualitative – quantitative) approach for business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors, et al, to differentiate ‘the intangible asset components of business that matter most’.

Also, the designation of ‘mission essential’ is intended to deter businesses, e.g., leaders, innovators, entrepreneurs, and startups, etc., from being dismissive of the relevance of intangibles.

As I define ‘mission essential’ intangible assets, they (a.) are frequently business, product, service, brand, and/or reputation specific, and (b.) measurably contribute to competitive position, revenue generation, and valuation, etc.

Business’s increasing dependence – reliance on intangible assets warrant leaders, management teams, boards, and investors to seek – acquire operational familiarity with the various types, categories, and applications of intangible assets and IP, especially the underlying-foundational, and often proprietarily developed and unique applications of…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
• structural capital (processes, procedures), and
• relationship capital (alliances, interactions, associations)

As a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator, it’s a pleasure to collaborate with leaders, managers, boards, and investors across sectors who are receptive to developing sustainable ways to utilize – benefit from their intangible assets and/or IP ‘beyond conventions’. That is, to enhance, create, and sustain sources of competitiveness and revenue generation.

Today, much innovation development and pitches for investment, etc., remain rooted in conventionally defined (fixed) asset models which are burdened with durational benefits, accounting, and taxation, e.g., property, equipment, vehicles, etc.

Not infrequently, tangible-fixed assets come with standardized wash, rinse, repeat, replace ‘life – value cycles’ with less significance being attached to the array of intangible assets necessary to go fast, go hard, go global.

It’s the intangible assets which matter more and most, e.g., which, when, where, why, and how they contribute, and for how long with effective management, safeguards, and risk mitigation.

However, the intangibility – non-physicality of these assets and the various ways intellectual, structural, and relationship capital can be introduced – applied, render same not particularly receptive to conventional (one-size-fits-all) forms of management, safeguards, or risk mitigation.

To maximize and sustain intangible assets’ respective contributory roles and value adds today, warrants specialized management – managing prowess.

 The art and science (ala curriculum, study, teaching, and experiencing) sufficient to become a good, better, best manager, emerges from one’s good sense to seek familiarity with the intangible asset – non-physical aspects of business economics and operations.

 The management of intangible assets are permanent – irreversible obligations, as is the universal dependency – reliance on intangible (non-physical) assets.

The need to consistently develop the right intangible assets, in the right way, at the right cost, and introduce same at the right time, and hold all proprietarily via the appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation is obligatory. https://kpstrat.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1258&action

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

 The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

 Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post Obligations to Manage Intangible Assets… first appeared on kpstrat.

I am a strong advocate for valuing businesses intangible assets, provided the valuation process…

1. recognizes the various (15) types-categories of intangible assets that may be in play.
2. differentiates intangible assets relative to contributory roles to product-service-brand-operating culture competitiveness, revenue generation capability, resilience, sustainability, and their mission essentiality.
3. distinguishes the various forms, contexts, and/or applications of unique and often proprietarily developed-held-applied
   • intellectual capital (knowledge-know how).
   • structural capital (processes, procedures).
   • relationship capital (associations, alliances, interactions).

Unfortunately, most approaches for valuing non-physical assets, as I view them…

• appear as convention laden snap-shots-in-time.
• presume one-valuation-methods-fits-all.
• deliver outcomes akin to assigning the assets to hospice, i.e., near the end of their useful contributions and life cycle.

Through my lens, (as a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator) conventional approaches to valuing business’s intangible assets seldom exhibit or reflect much, if any, appreciation for, nor receptivity that reflects the…

• universal business economic – operational realities convincingly conveyed in…Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

That is, today, and for the foreseeable future, 70 – 80+% of most business’s valuation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability, etc., lie in – derive directly from intangible (non-physical) assets.

 This translates to every business and/or startup – early-stage firm I have encountered over three decades, their competitiveness, revenue generation potential, resilience, and sustainability (ala their valuation) is reliant – dependent on…

1. developing + safeguarding-mitigating risks to the right sets of intangible assets.
2. introducing – applying those assets at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost.
3. embedding all in operating culture and treating those assets as mission essential.

Down-sides to using conventional valuation approaches which often include ‘presumptive cycles of accountable valuation-life cycle’ seems is akin to methods applied to valuing tangible-fixed assets with ‘baked in’ durations of contribution and/or valuation with projected obsolescence or write-off.

Readers could also compare convention-laden (intangible asset) valuation methods to trade-in valuation assessments for automobiles designated as high mileage. Dealership used car staff are obliged to emphasize appearance blemishes and marginalize whether the owner met – exceeded recommended maintenance for the vehicle. The latter is readily verifiable and is a legitimate ‘value add’ and attractive to prospective buyers for resale purposes.

• After all, buyers want an automobile with no hidden or probable problems which translate to costs.

Similarly, businesses mission essential intangible assets frequently go unrecognized, overlooked, and seldom, if ever differentiated insofar as contributory roles – value adds to competitiveness, revenue generation, durability, sustainability, and overall valuation.

• However, all is warranted – fiduciarily obliged today considering business things intangible play such significant-consistent roles in/to not only valuation, but competitiveness and reputation of every business’s operating culture.

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Each warrants the attention of business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors. Mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific posts. Each is intended to provide readers with reliable insights on current matters affecting business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly and are intended to draw attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are respectfully invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat

The post Valuing Business’s Intangible Assets: Frustrations and Reservations first appeared on kpstrat.

There remains a lot of guesswork, subjectivity, and weary conventions, standards, and practices regarding brand – reputation valuation and the consequences of reputation risk, and the repair costs.

We are obliged to recognize that brand and/or reputation, of, to, or for an individual or a business, are intangible (non-physical) assets. As assets, (not liabilities) both reputation and brand contribute to business, et al, attractivity, differentiation, valuation, and revenue generation potential.

Professor Ashlee Humphreys, a professor of consumer sentiment at Northwestern University was called as a witness by E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers, as an expert on (reputation) damages.

Professor Humphreys calculations included…

• how many people saw those (defamatory) statements, and
• how much the jury ought to award Carroll in compensation (for defamation), and
• estimates of the cost of a ‘reputation repair campaign’ for E. Jean Carroll.

Humphreys…

1. was contracted to (a.) analyze the reach of Donald Trump’s defamatory statements, and (b.) assess the damage to Carroll’s reputation.
2. had created a (hypothetical) reputation-repair campaign (process) designed to…

• • change the minds of the nearly 25 million people that she estimated were likely to have been receptive to Donald Trump’s (defamatory) comments about E. Jean Carroll.

3. described the (probable) viewership of tweets, articles, TV broadcasts, and other media, regarding Mr. Trump’s (two) denials reached up to 104.1 million people, which she considered to be an…

• • undercount because her examination did not capture media organizations that paraphrased Trump’s denial of the rape and disparagement of Carroll as a liar.

4. testified that (a.) the attitudes at issue here are strongly held, (b.) 30% of the readership in-particular Elle, where Carroll was a longtime advice columnist, is politically conservative, (c.) it didn’t help that Mr. Trump continued to disparage Carroll in the years since his initial (defamatory) statements, including at a press conference in New York Wednesday the day after the trial, (d.) in general, repeated claims only strengthen people’s attitudes when they come from a trusted source.
5. suggested for E. Jean Carroll, a reputation repair campaign would essentially amount to an advertising campaign across different media platforms that would try to persuade them to believe Carroll and suggested Carroll could place messages with influencers trusted among Trump’s audience, like Joe Rogan and Candace Owens, and pay for advertisements to appear multiple times.

As readers know, Mr. Trump (the defendant’s) self-declarations of brand – reputation valuation are frequently conveyed publicly and variously contested legally.

This is one, among several reasons why Professor Humphreys calculations are particularly important today. Because conventional methods and/or standards for treating (assessing – measuring) reputation – brand valuation as the intangible assets they are, fall short of what’s necessary today as more businesses become increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant. https://kpstrat.com/business-reputational-risksa-different-perspective-ii/

Humphreys also testified…

• her analysis estimates of Mr. Trump’s 2019 (defamatory) statements garnered somewhere between 85.8 million and 104.1 million impressions from social media, television, and online stories.
• that’s probably a low estimate, Humphreys said, because she didn’t factor in certain data sources like Facebook, Reddit, or local news outlets.
• that the damage of Mr. Trump’s (defamatory) statements at issue – in this case “was severe to her [Carroll’s] reputation as a journalist, and the costs to repair same are considerable.”
• that someone in those audiences would need to see corrective messaging as many as 7 times to change their minds,
• it could cost up to $12.1 million to implement a campaign that could change the “strongly held” attitudes of people who likely believed Mr. Trump’s (defamatory) statements.

Because of the political valence, Humphries suggested, as measured by the number which brand – reputation can potentially, (a.) displace, or (b.) combine with, relative to, (c.) Mr. Trump’s denials, it’s understandably challenging to (presume) people’s minds will change,

Should we accept Humphreys analysis, which I do, business leaders, management teams, boards, investors, and operating cultures, etc., are obliged to…

1. recognize reputation safeguards, risk mitigation, and monitoring are necessary.
2. consider how long it would take to re-build a ‘reputation and its contributory roles to not only a business’s valuation, but also to its competitiveness and revenue generation capability, etc., relative to the,
3. understand the asymmetric nature and keystroke speed which reputations – brands can be intentionally – nefariously targeted, undermined, damaged, and irrevocably destroyed.

In these contexts, we are obliged to reflect on recent statements by some airline executives about ‘errors in the design, manufacture, and assembly (quality control – oversight, etc.) of Boeing’s 737 Max aircraft…

• relative to the very dramatic public ‘risks’ same pose to passengers, are adversely affecting airline brands – reputations.

This is likely another example of brand – reputation risk reach and how same is now being understood and framed by business leaders, as well as buyers – users (and/or victims) of branded products and services which hold particular risks.

That is, a business’s brand, reputation, and its operating cultures which underlie both are indeed ‘mission essential’ components and should be treated accordingly.

It’s possible, a similar portrait will emerge with-regard to (a.) valuation of particular-Trump branded properties and (b.) calculations of Mr. Trump’s wealth, e.g., property valuation fluctuation may be reflected via allegations – sanctions of (criminal – civil) impropriety associated with or materializing from those properties and translate as liabilities.

An authentic quote on such matters is attributed to Warren Buffett, who reportedly said, “it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it, if you think about that, you will do things differently”. (Aug 9, 2020)

Readers can find numerous posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog that describe my ‘contributory role methodology’ for the valuation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various ‘risk realities’ that warrant attention of business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors. Mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges produced by reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1100+ topic specific posts intended to provide readers, ala business leaders, management teams, R&D administrators, boards, and investors, etc., with reliable insights to the application, valuation, competitiveness, revenue generation, and sustainability contributions of intangible assets.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are intended to draw attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are respectfully invited to explore other – similar posts, along with books, pamphlets, and papers available @ ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ and kpstrat.com.

The post Brand – Reputation Risk & Repair Costs… first appeared on kpstrat.