Inversiones 2.0: Show me the ROI
LinkedIn, la red social de profesionales más importante, existe un espacio de Q&A que no conocía o no había mirado en detalle. Y allí encontré una pregunta abierta a partir de una muy buena nota de Christian Smagg donde diferencia el concepto Enterprise 2.0 del tradicional web2.0.
Lo interesante también es que recibió 30 respuestas!
Vale la pena leerla y debatir sobre estos conceptos en el ámbito corporativo. La comparto (la negrita es mía)
While Enterprise 2.0 is often described as “web 2.0 meets the enterprise”, what Enterprise 2.0 encompasses is much bigger. Enterprise 2.0 represents a radical change in the way businesses operate and is as much about the people, the culture and the processes as it is about the technology, tools and platforms.
More than simply Web 2.0 applied to business, Enterprise 2.0 could indeed be considered as the synthesis of new technologies, models, processes and mindsets that are revolutionizing the way business is conducted. Technologies and models have also emerged that have had a dramatic impact on the future of the industry: open source, offshoring, services-oriented architecture (SOA) and software as a service (SaaS). Rather than one single trend taking the lead, Enterprise 2.0 will be the combination of all of these new technologies and models.
In this context, measuring the impact and evaluating the ROI of Enterprise 2.0 is fast becoming a hot topic. Although these may not always be the technologies cited as the most widely used by companies across industries, collaborative and communications technologies (including wikis, blogs, and RSS) are usually considered as having immediate value for the organizations. We also find that those firms with the largest number of tools deployed see the best value, although no “killer combination” of tools has emerged yet.
While many assert that Enterprise 2.0 technologies are subject to the same scrutiny as other investments, a general sense emerges that it is, in many cases, too soon to tell. However, these technologies can be assessed by their impact on business performance, which could be defined in many ways, including better customer engagement, more efficient collaboration within the company, and an improved ability to manage its online reputation. Executives also tend to invest in new technologies and processes because they hold out the promise of either increasing competitive advantage or reducing costs.
Much of the value of an Enterprise 2.0 deployment is incremental and “soft” in nature, and as a result, clear business value measurement remains elusive. In addition, most firms continue to use traditional value measurement techniques like ROI and total cost of ownership (TCO) when evaluating Enterprise 2.0 deployments. For marketers, this means a dual challenge of accommodating corporate value measurement expectations while helping them onto the right track for incremental and softer value realisation.
The reality is that the Enterprise 2.0 story still has a long way to go. The results will not be clearly quantified until the tools get into most workers’ hands and organisations understand the key elements of success with Enterprise 2.0.
Coincido en que aún es muy temprano para dar un veredicto o analizar los nuevos negocios bajo las herramientas tradicionales, y aún cuesta encontrar un método. Seguramente la reputación on line es un gran punto, considerando los miles de millones de consumidores que hay allí.
Será fácil de lograr?
[…] Me parece interesante el tema de las inversiones en nuevos negocios de la web social. […]
Hola. Es interesante la idea.Sin embargo saliendo un poco de la pereza intelectual creo que se pueden evaluar costos y retornos concretos.
O.T.: En el index no figuran los nombres de los autores de las notas. Estaría copado que lo hagan, ya que el blog (inclusive aunque en este caso sea corporativo) es algo “personal”.
Esta es la mejor respuesta que encontré hasta ahora, que ilustra mi punto:
I am taken aback a bit by some of your responses.
All services are subject to ROI / Cost Effectiveness. If you are an Architect of a System, application or even a simple utility, you are mandated to understand the Return on investment. From the big system of systems down to the lowly shell script. You MUST do Due Diligence. If you do not, you are implementing Technology for Technology’s sake. Must we keep repeating the same mistakes, over and over?
ROI is about value. It comes in the simplest forms and functions. Lets say I put my Incident and Problem management runbook data in a Web 2.0 based Wiki. If I have a process that occurs 10 times a week, and it saves my staff 5 minutes for every process instance, you can quickly ascertain a time component quantity that you have gained. Now lets say the burdened rate of a NOC Operator is $60 an hour. If I save 50 minutes a week, this equates to $50. ((5 * 10) * (60 / 60))
Then, for the year, you’ve “saved” 52 * $50 - $2600 for this one given task.
While it may seem mundane to have to go through this exercise, you must quantify your success or failure to those that don’t understand technical terms. Some of these folks control your ability to provide good solutions. (CEO, CFO, etc.)
Implementing a technology for technology’s sake can be very dangerous. You let the technology drive your requirements rather than letting your requirements drive the technology. How do you finish?
I submit that if you’re not doing ROI / Value Assessment up front, you may be stuck in implementing Hypeware, Smokeware, and Dreamware which ultimately turns into Shelfware And can lead to forklift replacement of both the Technology and its implementors.
yo no estoy de acuerdo.
Miren por ejemplo esto
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070126-8712.html
En definitiva lo que dice es que lo que hay que hacer para calcular un ROI (no entiendo por que lo ponemos en ingles) hay que seer flexible en la manera en la que uno lo piensa.
Principalmente por que no todo el mundo pretende lo mismo del blogging.
No hay formulas unicas en todos los casos.
Ser flexible y que no haya fórmulas únicas está muy bien.
Lo que no está bien es directamente no hacerlo y saltar al barco del “2.0″ sin tener claro cuál es el beneficio que se espera.
Y cuanto más “cuantificado” ese beneficio mejor. Con la fórmula que sea acorde y con la flexibilidad que necesite.
Ah, y creo que ponemos ROI por el mismo motivo que ponemos “blogging” el uso del término está extendido y es adecuado en el contexto (sobre todo si estamos comentando un artículo en Inglés)
JP muy bueno el punto, es verdad que hay que hacer el ejercicio de poder medir los rendimientos. Los beneficios (”generate increased press mentions, better search engine results, build word-of-mouth buzz, and function as a sort of free focus group that can save companies hundreds of thousands of dollars each year”) son interesantes y están a la vista; pero hace falta algo más.
Por ej. el paralelo pasa en las funciones soft en las corporaciones (RRHH, PR,etc) donde a veces nos cuesta medir el valor monetario de las acciones. Cual es la fórmula para medir la reputación?? dificil..o por lo menos no del todo resuelta.
En estos casos con temas 2.0 quizás pasa un poco lo mismo, pero creo que alguna forma de medir hay que probar
En las corporaciones hay áreas financieras que evalúan -y aprueban- estas cosas por más intangibles que sean. De hecho en esas reuniones los términos de ROI, EBITDA, etc
Hay algun modelo para medir? sabés que se usa en las empresas
saludos
PD: al abrir el post figuran los nombres, no se bien xq no en la front page
[…] con sus stakeholders y por lo tanto posible para muchas otras hacerlo. Pero resta encontrar un método que nos posibilite estar en igualdad de condiciones que otras […]