Michael D. Moberly, Principal, Founder, kpstrat
A desired takeaway of this post @ ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ is to express an option to binary conventions, upon which to frame discussions – decisions regarding whether, why, when, how, and/or where to devote time – resources to mitigating, what arguably may be, inevitable business risks…
- which are generally not competitively available via conventional business risk insurance venues,
- and, doing so, in ways which audiences consider relevant, probably viable, and perhaps obligatory,
relative to this not infrequent expression – circumstance following keystroke speed materialization – cascading of business risk…
I wish this company had engaged mitigation earlier, it would have been less costly, less time-resource intensive to try to remedy now, and less impactful to business momentum!
Mitigating business risks, often irrespective of a target’s tangible – physical assets or intangible – non-physical assets, doing so in advance of (probable, inevitable) emergence, materialization, and adverse cascading effects of risk, is…
- not solely about seeking time – resource – due diligence consensus among competing perceptions – assessments – experiences of asset – mission – transaction risk or asset vulnerability, probability, criticality,
- relative to negotiating if – when particular – types – levels of risk will materialize.
- nor is it about miring – deferring (business risk mitigation) decisions into ex post facto accountabilities, i.e., distinguishing perspectives held by worrywarts, opponents, proponents, or wishful thinking optimists.
Today, and for the foreseeable future, business leaders, boards, management teams, and investors (similarly) are obliged to avoid framing business risk vulnerability in conventional – binary contexts, e.g.,
- doing more to mitigate risk to x today,
- does not necessarily translate as doing less to advance z tomorrow.
To transition discussions about business risk and mitigation away from binary conventions, toward business development – operation – transaction realities, a plausible starting point may be to…
- recognize and consider arrays, manifestations, and keystroke speeds for delivering – materializing business risk today,
- which unarguably, are less relevant to past practice, i.e., binarily divisive conventions,
- especially relative to risk differentiation, assessment, and strategies to mitigate, also at keystroke speed.
Outcomes to considering – practicing this ‘starting point’, experientially, can emerge along continuums of benefits and beneficiaries, which are (variously)…
- less receptive to conventional characterization, i.e., winners, losers, near-term risk mitigators vs mid-longer term risk takers, and
- more reflective of mitigation initiatives which (fiduciarily) are obliged to consider – be influenced and driven by…
- benefits and beneficiaries of risk mitigation, i.e., who, what, when, where, and how.
- asset + risk amenability to objective differentiation, measurement, and assessment, and mitigation, relative to,
- whenever, wherever, however valuable, competitive advantage, proprietary, and revenue generating intangible assets are in play and at risk.
Experiential clarity to be sure.
Readers may agree, the relevance of continuing to characterize todays persistent – keystroke speed – always on (perhaps inevitable) business risk materialization environment (conventionally, binarily), irrespective of sector,
- should not be simplistically portrayed as bad, good, better, best contingencies posing desired outcome potentials.
Respectfully, readers of this postare invited to explore other – similar posts, books, and papers available @ ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ and https://kpstrat.com