Transformational software (ERP, CRM, PLM, etc.) implementations rarely deliver the promised benefits. Companies spend tens of millions on the implementations, but the ROI is usually late - or worse yet, never materializes at all. The software itself is rarely the problem. Instead, benefits arrive slowly because of failures in process redesign, change management, and training.

Three essential dimensions contribute to user acceptance: understanding, motivation, and skill. Check out this short self-assessment to see how your company or project stacks up in these areas.

It’s doesn’t surprise me any more when “project success” checklists fail to include change management, training, and documentation. So, when they make even the bottom of the list, it feels like cause for celebration. Michael Krigsman at the Project Failure blog puts forth 6 tips to reduce IT project failures. Last, but not least, among them:

6. Change management, documentation, and training are important. To be successful, users must understand the project’s goals, status, and impact on their jobs. Many projects pay too little attention to training and documentation, especially when the project starts to run over-budget. This oversight reduces productivity and can negatively impact the project ROI. In extreme cases, users simply don’t use the new software, bringing the effective ROI to zero.

So, the last few words in the last paragraph tell us about something that can “bring the effective ROI to zero.” If that’s the case, why is it so often at the bottom of the list? Or, as Michael states, ignored once the project starts to run over-budget?

One hypothesis I have: Project success for the software team isn’t measured on user adoption - or ROI of any kind. Instead, they’re measured on functioning screens and transactions. It’s up to the business to actually use the stuff.

Reminds me of a health club membership; just spending a lot of money on it doesn’t make you lose weight — you have to actually use it.

Good article in Chief Learning Officer magazine about the return on investment in training:

Contrary to what the “learning ROI” movement has said in recent years, C-level managers are less concerned about learning investments’ financial outcomes and more preoccupied in obtaining nonfinancial performance outcomes. In more direct terms, they want to see how learning and development delivers results in relation to organizational objectives. (Link to article here).

Unfortunately, some companies still try to justify training from a purely financial perspective.

It’s true that training - especially when it’s related to large software projects - can be expensive. But, as the old saying goes, how much do you suppose it costs to employ people who haven’t been trained?