I often worry when I see companies that mistakes means for goals. It’s a common issue on enterprise 2.0 : “put people into networks”, “share information”, “collaborate” are not goals, they are only means that help to achieve goals. Reduce the time of response, innovate more and quicker, devilver something that exactly meets client’s needs, reusing people’s knowledge are goals

This post [fr] is obviously a good example

Sudden thought during a meeting.

Training’s goal is not the training, it’s the company !

Evaluating the training is relevant only if it measures the impact on the company !

Right said ! It’s one of the consequences of a disease that affects organization, which causes are nearly twins :

- mistaking means for goals

- evaluating a on local scale although the benefits take place on a global scale

It can be linked to my series on the impact of enterprise 2.0 on intangible assets (here, here, here, here and here ), which may be useful when discussing the ROI of enterprise 2.0. As a matter of fact, even if I’m convinced that a “Soft ROI”, unquantifiable, exists, I don’t think the hard ROI topic is taboo and, on the contrary, I’m sure it exists. No need to complicate the issue : the ROI has to be measured at the level of the business processes that are supported by intangible assets, and strategy maps and BSC indicators make it very easy to visualize.

[Read more...]