This link has been bookmarked by 5 people . It was first bookmarked on 29 Oct 2008, by Christophe Deschamps.
-
09 Nov 09
-
05 Nov 08
-
02 Nov 08
Bertrand DuperrinExcellent, but that is only one part of the job. Now, the prestige we are seeking manifests itself in measurement. Too often social software enthusiasts and evangelists overlook this fundamental aspect (knowingly or otherwise). Where the mindset is fixated on measurement = financial, responsibility will commonly be considered to fall at the feet of management accountants. This is exacerbated because (well before it got momentum behind the firewall) there was a perception that social software is a web thing developed by web people, which puts it outside the remit of ‘accountants’.
ROi metrics measurement socialsoftware balancedscorecard knowledge knowledgelawyers
-
Measurement is the translation of an operational function into an economic reality that facilitates monitoring of activities and benchmarking of performance between organisations (and their offerings). That enables businesses to attract and/or inform shareholders who ultimately capitalise the visions and goals outlined in a strategic plan.
-
Some people may be reluctant to that as they consider reporting a ’sacred cow’. In fact, the measurement of activity divides into contractual and non-contractual measures. Contractual elements are compulsory and objectives as defined a priori, negotiated and accepted: they are normed. This type of measures is used for both internal and external purposes. Non-contractual elements are desirable and subjective (as consensus is specific to the organisation). This type of measure is used for internal purpose, principally for driving the activity.
-
2. Insertion into official reporting procedures. Some of the metrics I have mentioned below are already used in organisation. But the drawback is the adherence to local reporting. What is required here is the extension of those analytics to organisational reporting. Failure to make this extension into reports that fuel senior management decision making, will at best see the maintenance of the status quo or at worse regression and oversight of key operational issues. That is my experience gained whilst I designed, implemented and managed a sales reporting process in a multinational (world-leading) company. One way to relate knowledge-related analytics (i.e. to enrich organisation-wide reporting) is via the Balanced Score Car
-
-
29 Oct 08
-
It is common knowledge that “what you can’t measure, you can’t manage”. And because knowledge is intangible by nature, it is not measurable and therefore not manageable. This argument is seated in a fundamental law of Science. Consequently, the only way to move forward is to rematerialise knowledge, which we do by transforming knowledge into information or data.
-
Social computing helps transform tacit knowledge into formal transferable knowledge. This is why social software fundamentally complements existing organisational information architecture, as well as provides a constructive replacement for email, which is often considered a silo because of its overtly individualistic nature.
-
Today, ROI is the iconic, easy-to-catch and use wording for a much significant concern: evaluation. ROI is one tiny piece of a real big puzzle. ROI is an indicative ratio commonly used to anticipate the financial impact of decisions. It is a simplistic rendering of a very complex set of parameters.
-
In fact, calculating the ROI on social software is complicated to the point that economically it is unrealistic to do so. Instead of an estimation a posteriori a pilot phase, ROI as it is commonly referenced in the “Enterprise 2.0″ scene is pure guess and absolute non-sense in most cases.
-
* New metrics. Because we deal with different stuff, we need to invent metrics that are relevant to what we are trying to follow and drive. For social software, one can start with the usual web and online community metrics. Some new initiatives, such as Me-trics, open doors to more in-depth analytics that are worth considering (with a barrage of ethical considerations however).
-
Why Balanced Score Cards? For four reasons:
1. Kaplan & Norton have escaped the collusion of measurement and quantity. Measurement is not necessarily quantitative. That is a common source of confusion and of inefficiencies in numerous parts of human activity (to name a few: reporting (exhaustiveness), research (methodology), education (elite creation via selection on maths)). Measurement can be qualitative (see Georgescu Roegen work if you’re curious). It is no surprise if numerous initiatives in intellectual capital used Balanced Score Cards
2. Balanced Score Cards are notably visual, which is not so with quantitative ratios. That visual characteristic invites greater meaning and relevance.
3. Balanced Score Cards are heterogeneous and are therefore a more natural receptacle for a) qualitative and quantitative analytics and b) can encompass a variety of topics. In this regard, one can build official reporting encompassing both physical and knowledge activities.
4. Balanced Score Cards are aggregative so that one can build reports from various levels in the organisations. Coupled with its heterogeneous nature (previous point), one can build reports for HR, Marketing, Finance, … under the same format and surface analytics at one or many levels. The result is that some knowledge related metrics can climb the hierarchy up to the summit.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.