This question led to L&F CG Benchmark. The method and its first public application are now built. The relationship between commercialization and profitability remains untested.
My working hypothesis is that firms with stronger commercialization capability may become more profitable over time. I do not yet know how strong that relationship is, or whether it is causal.
Why I find the problem interesting
Legal expertise alone does not explain how a firm turns expertise into demand, client relationships, sales and growth. If commercial capability matters, we should be able to examine differences between firms with a consistent method and then test whether those differences are associated with later financial outcomes.
What has been built
The first application, Legal Kommersialisering, examines observable commercialization through 58 questions in seven equally weighted areas. We review public sources and agree the scores before publication. The first approved pilot analysis is Økland, at 18.47 out of 35. Visitors can inspect area scores, compare firms and see later results with their method version.
This is a measure of what a firm makes visible in the sources examined. It does not measure internal use, effectiveness or profitability. The field note from 29 September records what changed when the method and public sites went live.
What I currently think
Better commercialization could support more consistent demand creation, better use of specialist expertise and stronger client relationships. But the public score must not be treated as proof of any of those outcomes. It is the first variable we can examine consistently, not the answer to the profitability question.
What I still do not know
We need more firms, comparable financial information and observations over time. Which areas matter most? Do apparent relationships persist across firm sizes, practice mixes and market positions? Can any association be distinguished from causation running the other way, where profitable firms simply have more resources to invest in commercialization?
Those questions remain open. Built describes the instrument; the original hypothesis stays in the workbench for testing.