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.

A colleague commented to me recently that one of my clients needed a “Dinosaur version and a 21st Century version” of a particular ERP softare training course. Indeed, the audience for the course was as diverse as I’ve seen in almost every respect: generationally, culturally, politically, and in their level of computer literacy and years of experience with the organization.

This was an instructor led course and the content was primarily conceptual. The client had tried for a balance between traditional lecture and interactive exercises and games with the intent of trying to address a variety of learning styles during the one day course.

So, combine a widely diverse audience with a course presenting content in a variety of ways and, what is the feedback from the particpants? Overwhelmingly, about half of the particpants wanted more lecture and far fewer exercises and games and the other half wanted less lecture and more exercises and games. Interestingly, (or maybe not) the divide between these two groups was not so much related to individual learning styles as is was to age and years of experience with the organization. So, at least for this organization, the generation gap is the biggest one of all.

Thus the comment about the dinosuars and the 21st century. But here’s the problem, a big part of the reason for making these people sit through a full day course was the get them to interact, share experiences, and learn from each other. Having two versions of the course would not help to achieve that goal. So what’s the solution? How can we avoid a classroom experience where half the class is bored and disengaged from the lectures, and the other half is annoyed at the forced participation in interactive exercises and games, which they see as a waste of time? How do we get to a level of interaction that is reasonably comfortable for everyone? I don’t have the answer yet. But, I’m working on it.

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.

Everybody knows good training is essential to the success of enterprise software implementations, right? Well, if that’s true, why do so many companies fail to budget for it sufficiently?

Once a typical ERP project is about to go-live, chances are it’s over budget. Unfortunately, just prior to go-live is also about the time that:

- Senior management and business unit leaders start asking how everyone is going to get trained.
- The project team starts asking where the money for training is going to come from.

To make matters worse, the software vendor’s sales pitch is starting to sound, at best, like an optimistic version of the truth: “Don’t worry, our software is so intuitive you won’t really need to add much for training.”

To help those caught in the trap of shrinking budgets and expanding training needs, here’s a list 10 ways to stretch a training budget.

1. Start early. Request system access for the training team months in advance, not weeks. The last thing you want to do at crunch time is figure out how to access for another half-dozen team members.

2. Insist that your software vendor and integration partner construct a stable training environment so that training developers don’t spend time (and money) debugging untested software.

3. Get virtual private network (VPN) access for training developers and remote employees involved in acceptance testing. This will save thousands on travel and living expenses.

4. Use web-based training (WBT) as much as possible. A solid curriculum of asynchronous WBT modules, and synchronous eLearning (webcasts) can greatly reduce – or even eliminate – the need for in-person classroom training.

5. If you out-source WBT development, provide your vendor with corporate standards for online material and access to your LMS for compatibility testing. Do this early. Don’t consume budget on last-minute hassles with LMS connectivity.

6. Manage all class logistics from enrollment through room setup and materials reproduction internally. This is administrative work – don’t pay external consultants for busy work.

7. Document the job roles of system users and the tasks they will perform in the system. Provide your training developers with flowcharts or use cases that delineate job roles and process boundaries.

8. Assign one or more experts from the development/ configuration team to answer questions about the details of your customizations so that your training team or vendor can quickly document and prepare accurate scenarios. Don’t make them waste their time searching for answers.

9. Provide the training team with realistic training data for use in training classes – don’t make them spend their time searching for data.

10. Develop a team of super users who can attend classes (or stop in at scheduled intervals) to answer process-specific questions that might stump the stand-up trainers.

I know what you might be thinking: many of these items don’t seem like traditional cost-cutting measures. Assigning a member of the development team to training, for example (#8), sounds like a cost increase.

And it’s true, in the short run, some of these items might actually cost money. The trouble is, shortcuts in these areas will end up costing the company thousands – or millions – in lost productivity, errors, and re-work. (The term penny-wise and pound-foolish comes to mind).

In the end, it’s not just about the cost of training – it’s about cost of training’s impact on the organization.

Finally, a decent explanation for the uneasy feeling I get when I hear the phrase, “It’s not about the technology.” Put simply, it’s an oversimplification.

This feeling was articulated in a recent article by Andrew McAfee about the frequently over-used phrase, It’s Not About the Technology. He says,

Searching for this exact phrase yields about 1800 results on Google Blog Search, 17,700 on Google Web Search, and at least one book title. I’m sure I’ve said it myself a few times, although I try not to.

People usually mean one of two things when they say INATT; one of them is correct but somewhat uninformative, and the other conveys a lot of information, but is incorrect and even dangerous. The correct-but-bland meaning is “It’s not about the technology alone.”

I too have said INATT, because it’s a lot more provocative than what McAfee points out is the “correct-but-bland” meaning. For those of us in the fields of user acceptance, training, and change management, it’s an easy way to draw attention to - and puff up - our otherwise under-appreciated disciplines.

So, I started thinking: what’s a more interesting - and provocative - way to say It’s Not About the Technology alone?

Some completely inappropriate ideas:
All technology and no people makes Jack a dull boy.
Ask not what your technology can do for you …
It’s not about the technology, it’s about time for lunch (yikes)

Enough, already.

Let’s hear some real ideas.