Is intellectual property covered by a comprehensive, centrally governed security plan more valuable than the same property without such a plan? There are recent studies, that show catastrophes dealt with effectively as a result of an in-place response plan have a shorter effect on value (55 days, on the average). So, the risk of loss due to damage to reputation is reduced.
Should this influence specific company risk analyses? BVWire participated in an international conference call last week, hosted by Mike Moberly (Knowledge Protection Strategies), with Sean Lyons (Risk-Intelligence-Security-Control (R.I.S.C.) International) in Ireland as guest presenter. The thrust of Mr. Lyons’ engaging presentation was that as corporate defense programs evolve, from silos to enterprise security risk management systems, they should get a higher grade. Lyons and Moberly think risk management has a particularly large influence on intellectual property and intangible assets: key employees, spyware, outsourcing, exporting and “deemed” exports, trade secrets and other confidential data, intellectual property bundles, industrial espionage, etc.
It’s a strong argument that any specific company risk checklist should include a review of any asset protection plans in place. The more evolved the “defense” plan, the lower the risk, increasing the value of the asset defended.
Please let us know
if you have any comments about this article or enhancements you would like to see.