"By now, there should be no argument that intangible assets have become the key and irreversible underliers to success and profitability for most companies.  Remember, it is an economic fact that 80+% of a company's value and source of revenue evolve directly from intangible assets."  (Click to http://kpstrat.com/blog/?cat=2587)

This comes close to the end of the post as you see but it could very well be the lead in.  The situation at issue here, however, is the Business Plan and its "rigid structure and sequence."  In other words, how is a company to solve the conflict of adhering to its intellectual property based Business Plan when current events mandate change?  Global activity, predatory competition, government intervention, mergers and acquisitions and corporate alliances form a roiling terrain hostile to following a prescripted plan.  However, for most lending institutions, a well crefted Business Plan with a competent management team remain an essential.

It appears too much emphasis is placed on the "rigidity"/inflexibility" of the BP strategy and tactics- a condition at odds with the new normal of IP dominating the asset base.  When a product or service emerges from the R&D cycle with strong market potential and patent protection (pending), a thorough BP Strategy points to options sensitive to the market to be entered;  a) as a patent- protected product, b) a an asset to be licensed for royalties, c) as part of a technology transfer, d) some combination near term/long term of the options.

The onus is on the BP authors to complete a due diligence that includes market research, competitive analyses, business development strategic planning, product planning and a large measure of "what if" scenario planning.  The Plan should be done as close as possible to market entry with any of the options to maximize the revcenue potential and protect the IP.  This provides the flexibility needed with meeting the realities of the marketplace.