Why won't they use it? VS. why should we? successfully managing the expectations of users
Observed failures
First, allow me to offer a definition of a failed system implementation. In my experience, the
success or failure of technology/system implementations has not been as dependent upon the
technology or system itself as it has been on the
people developing and implementing the
solution. An organization certainly would not choose to implement technology if it did not
believe it would work. So therefore, the success or failure lies chiefly in how well the solution
has been communicated to the eventual users, how well the solution replaces the existing
business processes, how well the users have been prepared and trained, and how well the
promised benefits are actually measured and realized.
Over 20 years of observing the implementation of various technologies, the author has seen the
following items appear repeatedly, which might suggest some root causes for failure.
Lack of a Coherent Vision
Quite often we bring technology into an organization because “everyone else is doing it”. It
might be that the Chief Information Officer (CIO) determines that the organization is “behind”
in a specific area thus requiring the insertion of a technological solution. Or it may be that users
have grown tired of waiting for management to approve an enterprise wide solution and they
move forward with the selection and implementation of a technology solution that fits their
immediate and specific requirements. Unfortunately, this “local” solution may not be
compatible with the organization’s future IT standards.
It should be obvious that the lack of a clear Vision will have a major negative impact on the
implementation of any large information system. What the author has observed multiple times,
is the inability to move this Vision or set of initiatives from the Senior Executive level down
through the lower levels. This inevitably results in a “patchwork” quilt of technological
solutions throughout the organization that might be efficient for the individual groups but not
for the entire organization.
Poor Training
There is both a time and a content component to proper training. The timing of training is
crucial. If training is delivered too early from the actual solution deployment, then students will
forget what they have learned after being immersed back into their regular work routines. The
content is also vital in that it should cover basic fundamentals of the solution followed by actual
business processes that change as a result of using the new technology. Showing a group of
utility dispatch employees how to navigate a GIS is helpful, but to walk them through step-by-step
of their new dispatching processes—using the GIS—is the most meaningful.
While the author has observed many training classes and programs prior to the technology
solution deployment date, what is seldom observed is a systematic follow-up training program.
Users often forget some of the methods they learned in the training class, and resort to manual
workarounds, thus impacting the anticipated benefits.
Poor Communication and Cooperation
The presence of poor communication and lack of cooperation may have contributed to more
technology failures than all other items combined. While the technical aspects of the
technology solution are complicated, most of the really hard issues arise from the business
process changes and organizational adjustments that are inherent in these implementations.
Many individuals on the periphery of a large information project will not understand the
intricacies of such a large effort. Employees who may be involved in various review committees
can be very critical of the amount of time, effort, and money required. Even if they are part of
the communication process, they are likely to be unhappy about any large investment, which
can compete with their own information system initiatives.
Internal Politics and Competition
One of the more corrosive elements that the author has observed through the years has been the
adverse impact on information system implementations stemming from office “politics” and
internal competing for funds. The lack of corporate teamwork and ineffective leadership are at
the core of these inhibitors to success. Most large implementations are “phased-in” over a
multiyear timeframe and can seriously suffer if subjected to annual budget cuts and revisions. A
large system implementation must be funded for the entire implementation period in order to
mitigate this problem. Executive management turnover, unfortunately, can also introduce the
need to reestablish the business case validity and reasons for implementing the system in the
first place. This can lead to project schedule delays and possibly a decline in morale for the
implementing project team.
Expectation Mismatch and Abrupt Culture Change
Too often the author has seen a technological solution “oversold” to the user community in a
sincere desire to garner support for a pending business case. Users set certain expectations in
their minds and when these are not met at deployment time, they feel betrayed and are less
likely to embrace the delivered solution. While I have not witnessed a complete rejection of an
installed system, what often occurs is the increased use of workarounds, a reliance on the old
methods, and an atmosphere of grumbling and discontent. All of these inevitably lead to a
diminished realization of the anticipated benefits. This distrust will also work towards
undermining any future system implementation.
In other cases, there has been a complete lack of appreciation and understanding of the user
“culture” and their ability to absorb the incoming new technology. An example of this would be
to foist the latest wireless handheld units onto construction crew personnel that have been using
pencil and paper for the last 20 years. Being culture sensitive, an organization might consider
putting computer laptops in the construction vehicles for routine job logging and timesheet-keeping
the year before. This would allow the affected personnel to become familiar with an
automated tool, thus paving the way for the introduction of wireless handhelds with a totally
different user interface. This is an excellent example of how “change management” should be
viewed.
Observed Successes
Conversely, the author has repeatedly observed the following characteristics of successful
implementations of technology solutions.
Strong Leadership and Executive Support
This has invariably been a common denominator for all of the successful efforts that I have
observed. It starts at the “top” where the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is knowledgeable of
the project and fully supports its implementation. This has occurred through a carefully
executed communication and education plan that originates from the Executive Sponsor. This
sponsor in effect “owns” the project, is its greatest supporter and stands to gain the greatest
benefits from its successful implementation.
The Mission Statement of the organization is carefully and clearly articulated throughout the
ranks and the Vision for this technology project fits within the Mission Statement. A Steering
Committee of affected Senior Executives is formed to provide guidance and remove obstacles
for the Project Leader.
A strong and effective Project Leader is selected along with capable Project Team members.
These team members become “full time” on this implementation effort thus leaving their
existing jobs to be backfilled. They are allowed full empowerment to meet all goals resulting in
a successful deployment.
The financial compensation for this entire Project Team is tied directly to scheduled milestones
being met, budget categories being managed and users accepting the deployed solution.
