The “Intentional Approach” to Technology Adoption Part 5: Technology Adoption Theory

Maximizing technology adoption requires understanding the motivations of different groups of users and tailoring your deployment messages and materials to address their perspectives.  So what are these different groups of users and are they really so different?

Understanding how people choose and adopt new technology is critical.  This material is based on the Everett Rogers “diffusion of innovations theory” as adapted by Geoffrey Moore in “Crossing the Chasm.”   Many people are familiar with this work as it is one of the basic models used in the marketing of software and hardware.  What is different here is that I am proposing we can apply this understanding to improve the deployment of new technologies in our companies.

Briefly, Moore suggests that people can be broken up into five distinct groups; that each of these groups has very different motivations that determine if and when they will adopt a new technology, and that success in getting broad adoption requires separately addressing the interests and motivations of each group.  The size and relationship of these groups is typically portrayed as segments of a traditional bell curve (see figure)  The curve illustrates both the general order in which these groups adopt technology and their relative size and importance.  This curve is shown with a gap between the early adopters and early majority groups.  This gap, referred to as “The Chasm”, can take considerable effort and a very different approach to cross.  And until this gap is crossed, you may only have achieved a 16% adoption rate.
Moore suggests that we should begin introducing new technology to those on the left end of the curve and then progress, group by group, toward the right end of the curve.  He also suggests that we should focus on one group at a time, using each group as a base for selling the technology to the next group, and keeping this process moving smoothly from one group to the next.  It is important to not pause and allow a loss in momentum.

The five categories of adopters include:

1. Innovators – They pursue new technology aggressively without regard to how this technology might be applied.  They are the first to buy/try new technology items and their primary motivation is to explore how the new technologies work.
2. Early adopters – They also adopt new technology early on.  However, their interest is in how the technology will solve specific problems and needs.  They are people “. . . who find it easy to imagine, understand, and appreciate the benefits of a new technology, and to relate these benefits to their other concerns.” (Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm, p. 12.)  They also are looking at technology for “change agents”, something that could bring about major improvements in their company.  Early adopters are critical to deploying new technology because they do not need to hear several other people tell them how great a new technology is to convince them to try that technology.  Once they see it operate, they “. . . rely on their own intuition and vision” (Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm, p. 12.)
3. Early majority – As Moore explained, early majority users “. . . share some of the early adopter’s ability to relate to technology, but ultimately they are driven by a strong sense of practicality.  They know that many of these newfangled inventions end up as passing fads, so they are content to wait and see how other people are making out before they [adopt a new technology]”.  They are skeptical of major advances and prefer to go after incremental improvements.  Most importantly, they need to hear multiple references tell them how effective the new technology is before they will try it.  Because of the size of this group (probably about 1/3 of your company), the transition from early adopters to early majority is the critical transition.
4. Late majority – Typically another 1/3 of the population, this group shares the point of view of the early majority.  However, they tend to not be comfortable with technology and thus tend to wait until the new technology has become a standard before they adopt it.
5. Laggards – The laggards are not interested in new technology.

As you can see from the descriptions of each of the groups, they approach technology from a very different perspective.  Subsequent blog posts will discuss how one can use an understanding of these differences in crafting the adoption elements in your project management plan.

Many of us who develop and implement new technologies in our companies tend to be either innovators or early adopters by nature.   Practical when exploring new technologies, the innovator and early adopter points of view can also blind us to what we need to do and say to engage the rest of our company and achieve broad adoption.   One of the most serious mistakes we can make when selecting and deploying new technologies is to not stop and remind ourselves that everyone does not think like us!

Do these descriptions match people in your company and their approach to new technologies?

The “Intentional Approach” to Technology Adoption Part 4: Technology Should Address An Important Need and Be Tailored to the Business

The third impediment to technology adoption is that adoption is hindered when the new system does not address an important need or the initial implementation is not sufficiently tailored to the business to be compelling.  While these impediments apply to implementation of all new technologies, let’s use an enterprise search project to illustrate the point.

Addressing an Important Need

While having an IS project that can solve many important needs is not sufficient to get user adoption, it is necessary. In order to justify the time to learn a new system and the energy to break old habits, the new system must be solving needs that the intended users consider very important.   And the value must exceed the learning time and the time involved in using the new system.

As mentioned in previous blog posts, enterprise search 2.0 (ES2.0) has a great advantage over most IS projects, in that a well implemented ES2.0 project delivers answers to user questions, without requiring them to do work or to change how they work.  This results in a dramatic change in the value/work ratio users experience and sets the project up for a likely successful deployment.

Tailoring a Compelling Initial Implementation

As the saying goes “you only get one chance to make a first impression.”    In order for people to change their practices and adopt a new information system they need to have several very compelling initial experiences with that system.  If we consider an enterprise search implementation, this means that people need to find what they are looking for in their initial attempts with search.  This kind of success may not be possible if the initial search implementation has been scaled back, and the information they are looking for has not been indexed by the search engine.

While it is often tempting, for budget, schedule or cost reasons, to roll out an initial enterprise search deployment with only part of the project completed or some of the sources included, it is best to wait until the initial roll out will be impressive.   Start with a broad and compelling implementation of search; that is, cover all sources and all locations, and consider injecting database information into the index to create more uses and more value.

Many may think that all you have to do is to explain to your users that the initial implementation is limited and tell them which sources are included.  However, users tend not to remember the details of what we say, nor do they often know where the information they are looking for is stored.  And if users do not find the information they are looking for in their first few searches, they may conclude that search is ineffective and give up on it.  Then if you later add more sources to search, you may have a very tough time getting users to give search a second look.  Gradualism, in this kind of project, can be fatal.

Have you experienced information system deployments that underperformed because they did not address an important need or because the initial implementation was not sufficiently tailored to the business?

Enterprise Search – Thoughts on Organizational Impediments to a Full Implementation

I just read an excellent article by Michael Healey at InformationWeek titled, “Go Rogue with Enterprise Search”.  In this article, Michael makes the point that a relatively small percentage of companies have implemented enterprise search, and that most of the companies who have implemented it have typically indexed only one or some of their sources.  He refers to enterprise search as the “the most powerful but underused technology available to IT” and suggests that the limited use of full enterprise search is not the fault of the software, but rather a problem with how companies view and deploy search.  Anyone considering search should read his article.

In the article, Michael reports on companies who experienced low search adoption rates.  There are many possibly causes for these low rates, including controllable factors (such as those I am discussing in my blog post series, “An Intentional Approach to Adoption”); and factors that have to do with the type of enterprise search solution implemented.

Many of the existing enterprise search implementations might be referred to as “Enterprise Search 1.0” solutions.  That is, these are solutions which are generally embedded in specific systems or content sources, rarely access both structured and unstructured data, and in some cases, due to the proliferation of search within different systems, can only “federate” search results.  Consequently, these legacy enterprise search implementations might require people to know where information is stored, might require the user to search in more than one location, and may struggle with producing quick relevant results.   Given the prevalence of enterprise search 1.0 implementations, it is likely that this older approach to search might have been a good part of the lower adoption rates mentioned in Michael’s article.

I implemented a comprehensive enterprise search solution 4 years ago at my former company and have talked with people about enterprise search at a couple of hundred companies since then.  My company’s implementation achieved 100% adoption and absolutely great (and measurable) benefits for our business.  It became clear to me that companies should be flocking to enterprise search and I couldn’t agree more with Michael’s statement that the “lack of search is quietly sapping productivity”.  I have left my former life as Director of IT to spend time with companies who are considering and planning enterprise search implementations in order to do something about this.   We have too many difficult problems to solve in our businesses to ignore the benefits we can get from something like enterprise search.

My Experience With Full Enterprise Search

What should a “full enterprise search” solution look like?  In my former company’s case, we went beyond what most analysts would describe as a full enterprise search solution, to include something referred to as an “enterprise search 2.0” approach.  The basic elements include:

1. Indexing of all our unstructured data sources: including all file shares, all files on local hard drives, all SharePoint sites, the Intranet, our company web site, all confidential repositories, and all email (on the Exchange server; and email saved in archive files on local hard drives, saved on the network, and in our email archiving)
2. All of the company: all business units, all corporate departments, all offices, virtual workers, departed workers old content, etc.
3. Data from our databases (ERP, CRM, etc.)
4. Search features and simple search-based applications that combine information from the structured sources (ERP, CRM, etc.) with all of the unstructured content to provide very high level knowledge. This stuff is really amazing.
5. Interfaces that return more than just lists of documents, but consolidate information from various sources, sometimes using dashboard elements

Enterprise search paid off for my company in a few months and then started delivering a very real financial benefit that grows each year.  Experiencing enterprise search 2.0 is like walking through a hidden gate and seeing a whole new world on the other side.  Once one has seen that world, it is impossible to imagine not having instant finger tip access to all of the information, knowledge and expertise in an organization.

Problems Companies Have With Seeing the Value of, and Embracing Enterprise Search

There are a number of fundamental human and organizational problems that get in the way of companies seeing the great value of enterprise search.

An IT perspective: As a former IT Director who has had this conversation with many other IT Directors, enterprise search is not something that seems worth putting aside other conventional IT infrastructure projects for.   The conscious or subconscious thinking goes something like this:  “We have a backlog of important IT infrastructure projects we need to get to, in order to deal with growing storage, security, disaster recovery, etc.  Why should I take on a project like enterprise search when I have many other IT infrastructure projects I want to do and where I know and understand the need, when I don’t understand the information access needs in my company?  If this is a business problem; they should come to me if they need this.”

A business perspective: For people on the business side of a firm, perhaps the problem is even more basic.  First, having never seen a full enterprise search implementation, they don’t realize the great benefits they are missing and thus will never go to IT asking for enterprise search.  Second, people have been told that they could deploy an information system to give quick access to a company’s information and knowledge many times over the last few decades.  Most companies have implemented database and document repository systems multiple times, hoping that they would eventually get the “right technology” and deliver on the promise.  These projects have consistently under-delivered or failed and thus have bred a very healthy skepticism for promises about information and knowledge access.   An enterprise search 2.0 solution is truly a radically different approach, one that if implemented well is finally the answer to all of those former broken promises.  However, anyone who has been a part of those past IS projects should be asking tough questions.

Those of us who have implemented full enterprise search solutions that have reached 100% adoption and who have worked on dozens of database and data repository systems over the years are prepared to answer those tough questions.  We are, and must be, able to explain why and how enterprise search will actually deliver on those past promises, and how we will be able to help them drive toward full adoption.

The “Intentional Approach” to Technology Adoption – Pt. 2

In my last blog post, I suggested that by analyzing our past projects, we can improve adoption of our future information systems (IS) projects.  Three of my adoption observations are that:

1. adoption is hindered when . . . use of the new technology is contrary to the kind of staff we need in our company, contrary to the primary goals we give them, and contrary to human nature;
2. adoption is hindered when . . . we do not understand how to drive adoption;
3. adoption is hindered when . . . the technology does not address an important need or the initial implementation was not sufficiently tailored to the business to be compelling.

Getting good adoption rates with any new technology, requires keeping in mind these impediments to adoption in all stages of a project, from considering the fit and value of a new technology, to executing the deployment.  Let’s focus on the first impediment – the match between what the technology asks our staff to do, and who they are.

“Use of the New Technology Is Contrary To the Kind of Staff We Need In Our Company”

If we look at professional services firms, business success requires hiring and developing staff who are creative and independent problem solvers. And creative, independent problem solvers are not, by nature, inclined to change how they work to match a new standard process. This means that the best staff in professional service firms, and the junior staff who look up to them, are not likely to adopt a new IS.

“Use of the New Technology Is Contrary To the Primary Goals We Give Them”

In a professional services firm, business success requires our staff to be highly client focused.  We train them to avoid distractions and to focus their energies and time on understanding and delivering on the needs of the many different clients they serve.  And while we might ask them to do other things, like put information into databases or organize documents into repositories, we do not emphasize this “low priority” work, nor do we create rewards or penalties for following this behavior.  Acknowledging that one must limit the things we identify as “key priorities”, we reward for actions tied to client focus, client service and effective financial management.

If we are deploying an IS project that requires our staff to stop their priority work in order to add information to databases, or documents to repositories, we are setting up a conflict with their company directed priorities and rewards, and thus not likely to get good adoption.

“Use of the New Technology Is Contrary To Human Nature”

It is difficult to over-state how much people resist change.  No matter how great the benefits, people resist changing how they do their work for many reasons, including:

1. lack of understanding of the importance/value of the change,
2. lack of trust in those driving the change,
3. and perhaps the most important and most fundamental reason: fear

We might think that this fear is based in a rational concern about how a change may affect them, a concern that a new system may fail, and that they will pay a price.  But neuroscientists and psychologists suggest the problem is more fundamental, that fear of change is an evolutionary survival mechanism wired into who we are.  They suggest that when change is thrust upon us, that the first reaction is emotional, rather than conscious and rational.  And they suggest that this emotional and biological response impedes our abilities to even listen.  So when we are making our great and rational IS roll-out presentation, the reaction in much of our audience may be at a sub-conscious level, and it may be preventing them from even hearing our arguments about the value of the new system.  Sub-conscious fears that may be in their minds include: “loss of control”, “loss of status”, “feelings of incompetence,” and a sense that their many other priorities are overwhelming them or that too much change is going on in their life.

Getting employees to adopt new systems is pretty tough when their subconscious is full of these fears, they are creative and independent by nature, and your company is strongly pressing other priorities!

As technologists, addressing these very human issues may seem daunting.  However, there is good news when it comes to enterprise search.  When we do a good job of configuring enterprise search to the language and needs of our company, many of these impediments go away.  For example, an enterprise search solution can provide the information our staff needs without asking them to pause from their core work to put information into databases or repositories, and without forcing them to change how they manage their information.

The bottom line is, if your new information system requires your staff to do something that is contrary to who they are or what your company tells them is important, your adoption rates are likely to be very low.  Creating an IS that is “easy to use” and that has “information your staff wants” is not sufficient to generate broad adoption.

Enterprise Search 2.0: A New Way to Solve Age Old Problems

Welcome to my first Coveo blog post. My name is Trent Parkhill, and while I have been configuring Coveo’s enterprise search platform for the past four years, I only recently joined the company.  In my role as Director of Consulting on our professional services team, I will be focused on helping engineering, consulting and professional services firms understand and achieve great value from Enterprise Search 2.0.

I come to Coveo after 30 years in the consulting world, having worked as an engineer in the design of a wide variety of major projects.  During this time, I also managed many information technology projects, worked as a manager in one of the company’s business units, and spent five years managing IT. This broad background has given me a unique perspective on how technology needs to operate in order to add measureable business value.

In the industry I come from, success depends on a firm’s ability to fully leverage its own information, knowledge and expertise.  We have always understood this, and so with the introduction of computers in the last twenty-five years, we completed many information systems projects that attempted to solve this challenge. Most of these systems organized our information and knowledge in databases and document repositories.  However, despite these attempts at organization, the most valuable information continued to migrate into less structured and more transient sources like email.  And despite repeated attempts to consolidate the number of information sources, the number keeps growing, and information continues to be dispersed. Since most of these systems failed to fully achieve their goals, every few years we have embraced with renewed hope the next new database or document management software.

Several years ago, I found that enterprise search 2.0 could solve the problems we were repeatedly trying to solve with databases and document repositories – but unlike those past projects, enterprise search was rapidly and widely adopted.  My former company achieved 100% adoption, payback in months, and significant financial benefits that continue to grow.

So why did Enterprise Search 2.0 succeed when so many others had failed? Partly because it addressed two of the key impediments that have limited the success of many past information systems projects: namely that this solution provides all of the information people want, without our staff having to do added work, or to change how they work!   Think about it –  have you succeeded in getting all of your staff to feed databases, put information into standard document repositories, or to change how they manage their electronic information?

Through a series of blog posts over the next few months, I will explore why information technology projects have a history of low adoption and underperformance, and how we might use this understanding to ensure success in our future projects.  I look forward to reading your posts and know that by sharing our experiences, we can find ways to make all of our future technology deployments widely adopted and of great value to our businesses. I welcome your thoughts, experiences, and comments.