Core or secondary processes more valuable on the intranet?

We are investigating whether there are fundamental differences in how different types of enterprises gain value from the intranet when implementing process support.
We have defined the three following profiles:

• High rule-based: Half or more of the employees' jobs are process-oriented with routines to follow. Examples: airlines, hotels, service industries.
• High manufacturing-based: Half or more of the employees work in manufacturing jobs. (Raw materials turned into finished goods.) Examples: mining, construction, paper manufacturing.
• High knowledge-based: Half or more of the employees have non-routine jobs involving complex interactions and judgement calls. Examples: healthcare, consultancies, R&D companies.

The question is "What brings greater value to organizations: putting core business processes on line or putting secondary processes on line? (Core refers to the business applications of the enterprise, whatever they may be. Secondary refers to self-services for employees or HR, administrative or logistical applications.)

In all cases, have you found ways of measuring the value or savings achieved by putting the processes on line? Is intuitive recognition of increased efficiency good enough? Or do you need to or prefer to measure the value in concrete terms?

Please share a with us comment saying what type of organization you are, and your views on the questions above.

Comments

[Jane McConnell]

From a regular reader: “Really good question! Our intranet up until now does not have core processes online, but only secondary. In this way the intranet is seen as 'nice' but not essential. At the moment we are putting our primary processes at the core of the intranet. Then we'll see if this changes the perceived value. How to measure this? It's the answer to the question: when in economic downturn, is the intranet still labled as 'business critical'. In our case at the moment the answer is 'no'...”