Michael D. Moberly, Principal, Founder, kpstrat
Numerous studies consistently find that 80+% of most businesses value, sources of revenue, competitiveness, and future wealth creation potential, etc., (today, and for the foreseeable future),
- emerge directly from (usually, internally developed – proprietary) intangible, assets, i.e., various forms – contexts – applications of intellectual, structural, and relationship capital, ala know how.
To my knowledge, no studydistinguishes that percentage, i.e., the contributory role and value of intangible assets by business size or sector…
- more specifically, my experiences suggest, in many instances, particularly SME’s (small – medium sized enterprises) and research-based startups, etc.
- in these instances, its likely particular – intangible assets are more significant vis-a-vis their contributory role and value, i.e., attracting investment, commercialization potential, competitiveness, and sustainability.
Its’ appropriate then, for business leaders and management teams to recognize their ability to build – deliver a viable, competitive, lucrative, and sustainable business is
- increasingly dependent on being (more + consistently) attuned to specific intangible assets their business is reliant.
Absent that executable familiarity with business things intangible, its’ more likely, perhaps inevitable, that particular – struggles, challenges, and/or risks will unnecessarily divert attention and dominate dashboards.
Again, the capability to extract value and competitiveness and generate revenue by exploiting business things intangible is universally prudent and has little, if anything, to do (near term or strategically) with (business) sector or size.
Business things intangible are relevant to SME’s, early stage companies, research-based startups, and maturing businesses everywhere, which is obliged to reflect the interests of every Chamber of Commerce and/or Rotary Club globally.
Stewardship, oversight, and management of business things intangible are no longer discretionary functions. Instead, each represents a responsibility (a fiduciary one in my judgment) which (business) leadership and management teams (entire c-suites) are obliged to translate (24/7/365) as routine action items on their respective agendas.
Put another way, why do businesses with distinctive and obviously valuable ‘brands’ routinely have dedicated ‘brand managers’…
- For the most part, a brand manager is charged with (among other things) the stewardship and oversight (safeguarding) of a brand’s value, reputation, perception, competitiveness, sustainability, and mitigating asymmetric – keystroke speed risks which may affect revenue generation capacity.
- After all, every ‘brand’ is an intangible asset.
The manner-in-which business things intangible are treated have both tactical and strategic business (decision) applications. This means intangible assets are obliged to not be mis-characterized as merely a legal process or an accounting function. Instead business things intangible genuinely warrant specific leadership and management overtime.
