Licensing Is Not Adoption… and Adoption Is Not ROI

Table of Contents

• Licensing technology does not transform the way work is done
• Usage is not adoption
• Where return on investment really happens
• The frequently ignored variable: organizational intentionality
• Adoption as a continuous capability, not a one-off initiative
• The question that matters to decision-makers
• Know the author - Nuno Miguel Guerra

Over the past two decades, organizations have consistently invested in technology platforms with the goal of increasing productivity, collaboration, and operational efficiency. Yet, significant gaps persist between the level of investment made and the value actually captured. One of the main reasons is the ongoing confusion between three distinct concepts: licensing, usage, and return on investment (ROI).

Licensing technology does not transform the way work is done

Microsoft 365 has become the standard productivity platform across thousands of public and private organizations. Licensing is widespread, implementation is relatively straightforward, and access to the tools is assured.

However, multiple international studies converge on a clear conclusion: access to technology alone does not change organizational behaviour.

Licenses provide technical capability.

They do not create habits, redefine processes, or change decision-making practices.

The absence of behavioural change means that, in many cases, technology investment remains underutilized, becoming a recurring cost rather than a true performance lever.

Usage is not adoption

Another common misconception lies in how success is measured. Metrics such as number of active users, volume of stored files, or frequency of application access are indicators of usage, not adoption.

Research in digital transformation has been consistent on this point: adoption occurs when technology genuinely influences how work is organized, decisions are made, and execution takes place.

An organization can make intensive use of modern tools and still retain fragmented processes, excessive reliance on email, information redundancy, low-value meetings, and poorly informed decision-making. In these contexts, technology is present, but the operating model remains unchanged.

Where return on investment really happens

The ROI associated with platforms like Microsoft 365 does not result from opening applications or activating features. Value emerges when observable changes occur, such as:

• reduced friction in cross-team collaboration,
• better access to relevant information at the moment of decision,
• fewer operational redundancies,
• improved quality and focus of meetings,
• reclaimed time for higher-value activities.

These improvements are widely documented in the productivity and knowledge-work literature and depend less on the technology itself than on how it is integrated into everyday organizational life.

The frequently ignored variable: organizational intentionality

No platform can automatically compensate for the absence of a clear operating model, misalignment between leadership rhetoric and practice, internal communication failures, or the lack of business-outcome-driven metrics.

Without explicit intent around how the organization aims to work, technology tends to replicate and amplify existing practices rather than transform them.

This phenomenon is well recognized by analysts and academics: technology acts as a multiplier, positive or negative, of the organizational context into which it is introduced.

Adoption as a continuous capability, not a one-off initiative

Organizations that consistently extract sustained value from their digital platforms share common patterns:

• they treat adoption as a continuous process,
• they link technology to clear strategic objectives,
• they monitor organizational impact, not just activity,
• they adjust practices based on real feedback.

They do not see adoption as a project with a beginning and an end, but as a permanent organizational capability, essential in a context of accelerating change.

The question that matters to decision-makers

In the face of significant technology investments, the critical management question is not “Are we using the platform?” It is, instead: “Are we working better because of it?”

Until this question sits at the center of how technology investments are evaluated, a meaningful gap will remain between apparent modernization and the effective creation of value. In a context of pressure on productivity, talent, and competitiveness, this gap is no longer just an operational inefficiency.

It becomes a strategic risk.

Originally published in Portuguese in Executive Digest