With the advancement of technology, websites are becoming more interactive by the day, rather than the static web pages that existed a while ago. It is capable for business to be conducted via a website and with no physical contact with the customer. Unlike in the past when a website only held basic information about a company and the product and services offered, and a customer could only view the content contained therein. With the onset of social media where people and business can interact, blogs, wikis and video sharing sites, this has given rise to the web enterprise, whereby businesses can utilize online tools available to enhance business. However there have been concerns regarding the return on investment pertaining enterprise 2.0.
There are questions lingering in the enterprise software companies regarding the returns that companies which deploy them get. This is in considering that some wikis and blogs, and other social networks sites may be popular with records of millions of visitors, but that may not necessarily translate to instant business (Drozdenko, 2012). Though the sites may be popular, there is a likelihood that the visitors may not be customers who provide market to available goods and services thus visiting with an intent of consumption.
However it cannot be denied that by having a high popularity, means that information regarding the services and goods offered by the company is passed on to a much larger audience. It is a major step for a business to spread awareness regarding their goods to a large population. Though there seems to be widespread interest in implementing the Enterprise 2.0 framework, many a companies are not fully convinced on embarking on the platform to conduct business (Te Fu, 2009). This could be attributed to concerns that employees and workers already have a lot of software today that they are not fully implementing, and it’s purported that the tools offered are already in existence in the organizations.
A major challenge that Enterprise 2.0 presents is in the calculation of Returns on Investment, ROI. This is practically because most of the benefits to be accrued from its investment, and the exact costs involved in it cannot be accurately quantified before the initiative is underway (Te Fu, 2009). There is usually no real data available until after the passage of time upon the commencement of the whole project. This thus requires the organization to embark on the investment and then after a given time period, take assessment with the available data. However for initial calculations, the business has to form a base on which to perform calculations (Te Fu, 2009). One of the issues to consider is the investment cost that will be required to set up the Enterprise. To embark on Enterprise 2.0, the business should consider the necessary It infrastructure required. This would entail both the hardware needed and would entail network servers, software and applications, routers, security measures, human resource to aid in management, real estate expenses among other miscellaneous costs (Drozdenko, 2012). The business can also opt to implement cheaper alternatives like cloud computing for less cost.
The company thus needs to set a specified timeline after which they should perform an extensive analysis of the Enterprise. The assessment ought to involve a survey that seeks to point out how the investment has helped in revenue generation and in the increase of the market base and sales. The employees should be involved to gauge their view regarding the investment and how it has aided in uplifting the business.
Drozdenko, R., Jensen, M., & Coelho, D. (2012). EXAMINING CONSUMER ONLINE SEARCH BEHAVIOR: WEBSITES, PRODUCTS, BENEFITS AND CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS. International Journal Of Business, Marketing, & Decision Science, 5(1), 94-109.
Shattering the Myths About Enterprise 2.0. (2009). Harvard Business Review, 87(11), 1-6
Te Fu, C. (2009). BUILDING A PLATFORM OF BUSINESS MODEL 2.0 TO CREATING REAL BUSINESS VALUE WITH WEB 2.0 FOR WEB INFORMATION SERVICES INDUSTRY. International Journal Of Electronic Business Management, 7(3), 168-180