Chris Brogan is out today with a new post touting the importance of keeping blog posts short. Why do I feel like he's looking at me when he says that?
With that in mind, then, I'm just going to point you in the direction of another wordy blogger today who has some valuable things to say.
Over here is Dion Hinchcliffe with a very detailed analysis of the challenges we encounter when we try to determine the ROI on Enterprise 2.0 initiatives. He points out that Enterprise 2.0 initiatives, when done right, deliver these benefits to an organization:
With that in mind, then, I'm just going to point you in the direction of another wordy blogger today who has some valuable things to say.
Over here is Dion Hinchcliffe with a very detailed analysis of the challenges we encounter when we try to determine the ROI on Enterprise 2.0 initiatives. He points out that Enterprise 2.0 initiatives, when done right, deliver these benefits to an organization:
- Improved Productivity
- Knowledge Retention
- Less waste and duplication
- Better leverage of assets
- Increased Innovation
The challenge comes from the fact that Enterprise 2.0 solutions are not normally "aimed at and unleashed at specific problems." As a result, the "cause and effect chain" -- the link between introduction of technology and accrual of beneficial result -- is longer and less immediately evident than it is with "classical technology investments" like assembly lines. Bring in a robot to build a car and you can immediately measure the impact to the bottom line, build a social networking platform to foster relationships between employees based on contextually relevant knowledge...well, it's just going to take longer for the latter example to show its impact and it may not be entirely possible to trace effect back to specific cause.
That's not a reason not to invest in Enterprise 2.0, though; that's a reason to rethink how we value technology initiatives within the organization.
I finished my blog post yesterday suggesting that in some cases organizations would do well to target Enterprise 2.0 projects at specific problems since that would allow them to more easily achieve some before and after measurements and would give users a chance to more immediately experience the benefits. Experienced benefit is the best catalyst to adoption that I know of and wide adoption is an important ROI metric. I hadn't thought of the industrial analogy before reading Dion's blog, but I think it's a useful one. I don't think Dion's point is in opposition to mine when he says that Enterprise 2.0 has not traditionally been used in this targeted way; I think he's saying it hasn't been, not that it shouldn't be.
Check out Dion's post; let me know your thoughts if you want. It's always more fun to hear from you than to hear myself.
That was short, right?
I finished my blog post yesterday suggesting that in some cases organizations would do well to target Enterprise 2.0 projects at specific problems since that would allow them to more easily achieve some before and after measurements and would give users a chance to more immediately experience the benefits. Experienced benefit is the best catalyst to adoption that I know of and wide adoption is an important ROI metric. I hadn't thought of the industrial analogy before reading Dion's blog, but I think it's a useful one. I don't think Dion's point is in opposition to mine when he says that Enterprise 2.0 has not traditionally been used in this targeted way; I think he's saying it hasn't been, not that it shouldn't be.
Check out Dion's post; let me know your thoughts if you want. It's always more fun to hear from you than to hear myself.
That was short, right?
0 comments:
Post a Comment