How Did They Do It? Revisiting Nonprofit Scaling Case Studies to Identify the Intangible Assets Used to Leverage Scale

• In Event: Revisiting third sector literature

Abstract

This analytical research emerged from one of the three questions raised in the conceptual paper Nonprofit Assets: Identifying Barriers to Recognizing Intellectual Property Assets in Strategic Management (Walker, 2021) presented at ISTR in 2021. This research continues to build on the gap, in both research and practice, of recognizing, managing, and strategically leveraging intellectual property and other intangible assets in nonprofits for mission-related goal and impact. (Kong, 2003; Kong 2007; Walker 2018a)

This analysis is one attempt to address the question “what can academics and practitioners do to bring intellectual property assets into the nonprofit strategic management discourse?” The goal is to expand upon an observation in the 2021 paper, referenced in the above paragraph, about Manchester Bidwell Corporation (MBC), a US-based nonprofit corporation. MBC has been the subject of at least two high-profile case studies (Stuart, et al., 2010; Brant, 2005), but neither of the case studies recognize or specifically name the variety of IP assets owned by the organization and how the assets influence the strategies used by the organization for furthering its strategic objectives and mission. By contrast, the author examined several case studies for a 2016 paper that demonstrated a variety of strategic uses for intangible assets with varying degrees of awareness of their importance in leveraging the scale that was examined in the case study.

This research revisits several nonprofit case studies to identify intellectual property and intellectual capital assets named or described in each case study (Walker, 2016b). The cases selected focus on “scaling” because a key source of leverage for scale is intellectual capital. Intellectual capital is an amalgamation of a variety of intangible assets organized for a business objective (Stewart, 1997; Svieby and Lloyd, 1987; Nash 2010). The paper examines case-specific contexts for how intangible assets, like intellectual property or structural capital, have value for nonprofit organizations (Kong 2003; Kong 2015; Kong and Prior, 2008; Kong and Ramia, 2010; Bronzetti and Veltri, 2011); and why such intangible assets necessitate fiduciary oversight and strategic management according to regulatory and oversight agencies like the IRS (Walker, 2018b).

Finally, the paper discusses how identifying and naming intangible assets in case studies adds additional value and context to the utility of case studies for teaching in the nonprofit and philanthropic studies academy.

References

Brand, J., 2005. What one man can do. Inc. Magazine. September issue, 145-153.

Bronzetti, G., and Veltri, S., 2011. Intellectual capital in the nonprofit sector. Intellectual Capital Reporting Practices in the Non-Profit Sector. Sumy, Ukraine: Virtus Interpress.

Kong, E., 2003. Using intellectual capital as a strategic tool for non-profit organisations. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 3, 467-474.

Kong, E., 2007. The strategic importance of intellectual capital in the non-profit sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), pp. 721-731.

Kong, E., 2015. A qualitative analysis of social intelligence in nonprofit organizations: external knowledge acquisition for human capital development, organizational learning, and innovation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13, 463-474.

Kong, E., and Prior, D., 2008. An intellectual capital perspective of competitive advantage in nonprofit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13, 119-128.

Kong, E., and Ramia, G., 2010. A qualitative analysis of intellectual capital in social service nonprofit organisations: a theory-practice divide. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(5), 656-676.

Nash, M. T. A., 2010. Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. In D. O. Renz (ed) The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (pp. 262-298). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations, 1st edition. New York, NY: Doubleday / Currency.

Stuart, T., Hardyman, G. T., Heskett, J. L., Leaman, A., 2010. Manchester Bidwell Corporation: The replication question. 810097. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Publishing

Svieby, K. E., and Lloyd, T., 1987. Managing knowhow: add value by valuing creativity. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Walker, M., 2016. Protectionist versus open IP regimes in social enterprises. [online] Walker Philanthropic Consulting. Available at: https://dec5339b-d477-4e71-9b70-0ccbf02f0540.filesusr.com/ugd/6bc2fd_b49b0f8a62b04381be285c3d59a46cb8.pdf

Walker, M., 2018a. Governance teams, fiduciary duty, and intellectual property. 2018 ISTR Conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10-13 July, 2018. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Walker, M., 2018b. Governance teams, fiduciary duty, and intellectual property. 2018 ARNOVA Conference. Austin, TX, November, 2018.

Walker, M., 2021. Nonprofit assets: identifying barriers to recognizing Intellectual Property assets in strategic management. 2021 ISTR Conference.

Author

• Michelle Walker, Walker Philanthropic Consulting