Why won't they use it? VS. why should we? successfully managing the expectations of users

Why won't they use it? VS. why should we? successfully managing the expectations of users
Stan P. Weber
Stan P. Weber Executive Consulting
9564 East Coronado Court
Parker, Colorado 80134-5506
www.stanweber.com

Abstract
Simply stated, information system or technology implementations can be measured by the acceptance/rejection of users. This endless cycle is repeated across many companies: An information system or technology is approved, funding is established and implementation begins—only to see the intended users push back. Anticipated business case benefits are minimized, or worse, never realized. Management pushes forward anyway since monies have already been budgeted, hoping to “get it right on the next phase or the next system”, while users feel “another system has been shoved down our throat”. What has happened and could it have been avoided?

This presentation will address observed methods of system and technology implementations. Some are guaranteed to succeed. Some guaranteed to fail. Managing the expectations of users to new technology doesn’t have to be a hit-or-miss proposition. The presenter will discuss his 20-years of observing successes and failures of technology implementations from other companies. The extremely important concept of “data integrity”will be shown to be a crucial key in the successful long-term acceptance of technology systems by users. Correctly profiling users as to their ability to change and absorb the pending technology will also be discussed.

Introduction
Let’s begin by asking the question, “Why do organizations feel a need or obligation to change”? We could attempt to categorize the answer in the following four (4) areas:

Market Forces
An Internal Need to Improve Performance
Competitive Situations
Rapid Changes in Technology

Market Forces
An organization must be constantly aware of their perceived presence and position in their industry. It is this awareness coupled with a desire to not remain static that often drives change.

Internal Need to Improve Performance
Executive management at a “for profit” organization is on a never-ending quest to improve the bottom line. This can often result from shareholder dissatisfaction or falling profits and market share.

Competitive Situations
Threats to corporate survival will always foster a desire to change the way an organization does its business or delivers its products and services, if it means gaining market share from its competitors.

Rapid Changes in Technology
Technology can be a wonderful asset to our personal and business lives. Constant improvements in technologies are often a driver for an organization to change. Organizations don’t incorporate technology into their business just for the sake of “keeping up”, but most often see a clear and positive impact to the bottom line financially or in boosting the performance and morale of their employees.

The typical cycle (high level view)
While the following graphic is not intended to be exhaustive, it does identify the major high-level steps that most organizations follow when introducing a technology solution.

When we refer to users accepting or rejecting a technology solution there needs to be some degree of measurement. Observable symptoms of users accepting a system solution could be stated as follows:

They actually use the solution in their revised business processes
The anticipated benefits actually accrue from either hard or soft savings
Employee morale and disposition actually improves after a “learning curve” period

Observable symptoms of users rejecting a system solution could be stated as follows:

The increased use of “workarounds” to the new system solution
Resorting to abandoning the solution and returning to previous business processes
The delay or loss or planned benefits
Employee morale and disposition declines after a “learning curve” period

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.

Consistent and Intensive Communication
A coordinated communication plan is a good way to explain the goals, timelines, benefits, and problems of the project. An up-to-date project Web site and a periodic newsletter are very helpful. Frequent meetings with the key business process owners will also help move project status information down to the ultimate users by using the existing hierarchy of the organization. There is the potential to “over communicate” too early in the project, which can raise the awareness level too soon leading to frustration with users who perceive the project is taking too long to be deployed. Communicating concepts and ideas early on and then using actual screen shots and data can mitigate this problem as the deployment date nears.

Actual Benefit Measurement
An astounding number of organizations that I have consulted with over the past two decades have privately declared that they do a poor job in this category. After the glow of deploying the technology fades, and the organization falls into its routine business cycle, the drive to actually measure whether the benefits were attained also either wanes or is simply ignored.

The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) should insist that a “benefit measurement” plan be developed and put in place. While most projects declare some level of intangible or “soft” benefits, the tangible or “hard” benefits in the business case should be both attainable and measurable.

Change Management Focus
My definition of change management is “how an organization goes about implementing the human changes brought about by technology and business process improvements”.

How many efforts in the past could have been successful if the implementation plan was altered or phased-in to take into account the “organizational readiness for change” of its users? I would submit to the reader that many (not all) system implementations catalogued as “failures” in the past, were due to the organization’s failure to take the necessary steps to understanding their people, and the amount of change they could absorb.

The successful organizations that implement technology solutions with an intense focus on change management most often do so because they have learned through their past failures. Many organizations have learned the hard way that while the actual technology solution itself can be superior, if the users do not embrace and utilize it effectively then the implementation cannot be termed as successful.

Data Integrity
Too often an organization will spend millions of dollars on converting their existing paper records into digital form, only to fail to change the business processes that will maintain this asset. Data Integrity must be closely associated with the organizations core values and must become part of its culture.

Information technologies can decrease the volume of errors but the real problem is often the internal culture. Data Integrity begins with the employee that captures the data, and takes ownership for entering it correctly. In a utility, the focus must be on the long-term goal of getting the field/construction personnel (or the appropriate data owner) to take “ownership” in the data that resides in the corporate databases. For too long, a wall of distrust has impeded efficiency due to fact that the people who update the records are not the same people who use those records in the field. The sooner an organization can use mobile computing technology which allow the field technicians to alter and update the corporate records, the sooner the wall of distrust will begin to crumble.

Conclusions
Organizations will continue to focus on the “bottom line” when it comes to deploying information technology. The successful entities will learn from industry “best practices” as well as from previous failed internal implementations. They will recognize the vital importance that comes from having solid Senior Executive support, full implementation funding, strong project team leadership and an unusual level of sensitivity to the culture of the proposed users of the solution.

People do make the difference in the way expectations are both set and realized. Selecting the people to staff a technology project has too often been performed with an attitude of “who is available to work on this project?” The author feels that after Senior Executive support and funding, the most important critical success factor is in selecting a strong Project Leader and Team staff members. The degree to which a Project Team can meet project milestones, manage budgets and user expectations could be directly correlated to a successful deployment. Having a thorough change management strategy and implementation plan could be the difference between success and failure.

References
The following may be useful sources of information for continued reading on this topic.

Action Management [PriceWaterhouse Coopers]; Stephen Redwood, Charles Goldwasser, Simon Street, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012 ISBN:0471-34547-4
Managing the Change Process [Coopers & Lybrand]; David Carr, Kelvin Hard, William Trahant, McGraw-Hill, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 ISBN:0- 07-012944-4
The Change Management Handbook - A Road Map To Corporate Transformation; Lance Berger, Martin Sikora, IRWIN Professional Publishing, 1333 Burr Ridge Parkway, Burr Ridge, IL 60521 ISBN: 1-55623-975-0