Adoption and the Power of 3

Over the last few years it’s been pleasing to see how some of the collaboration software vendors have been changing their tune over how to successfully adopt their technologies.

If you compare the early adoption collateral for Jive, Yammer, Chatter (insert numerous names here) and look at the adoption approaches they now recommend – built around behavioural change, habit formal and other techniques from neuroscience and related disciplines – those of us from the ‘people’ side of technology feel more comfortable than ever in championing the mantra that good adoption of collaborative technologies is more about psychology than technology.

Using the ‘power of 3’ psychological approach here is my take on the ‘do’s and don’ts of adoption broken down into 3

DON’T

• Don’t focus on technology / product names and keep use of traditional corporate channels to a minimum
• Hierarchy won’t be effective – no ‘trickle-down’ effect in most organisations. Leadership support is important but it must be active (role modelling not just telling)
• Don’t tell people the whole story, show then everything at once, or provide just one approach / route for success

DO

• Focus on behaviours and scenarios with short bite size coaching and messaging (power of 3)
• Create a bottom up / ‘word of mouth’ approach, developing social learning, role models (doing rather than telling) and nudge rather than command
• Work on volume (light lots of little fires – develop use cases, nurture advocates, present at meetings) and then focus energy on those that catch fire and show potential to grow)

Sticking with the ‘power of 3’ theme here are the least / most effective approaches to adoption (habitual usage) and sustained business value from collaborative technologies.

1 – Throw it over the fence and let the business get on with it (Adoption by Chance).
– Provide access to the tools
– Provide access to training areas
– Develop communication / launch plan
– Create messages and deliver through formal channels
– Email alerts
– Portal / Intranet
– Traditional Change Agents
– Leave it to the business to ‘go figure’
Adoption success around 10-15%

2 – Common Formal Approach (Adoption through hierarchies)
Favoured by many of the consultancies involving engagement through leadership, implementing a formal approach around defining and delivering the programme which is refined, together with collateral that is recycled and enhanced as the programme develops. The formal approach includes elements such as:

• Developing the pitch
• Defining ‘What’s in it for me’? for business areas
• Technology Planning
• Engagement planning
• Adoption services
• Build and sustain
Adoption success around 45 – 60%

3 – Social Approach (Adoption through informal networks, tribes and communities)
This generally involves engagement through informal structure of companies with adoption built around explicit use cases (not abstract but rapid, high volume explicit use cases) and supported by:

• Deploy waves of rapid use cases
• ‘Word of mouth’ through networks
• Nudge channels
• Informal advocates
• Social learning
Adoption success around 55 – 70%

Adoption by Chance

Having looked at 3 very different approaches to adoption of collaborative technologies here is my take on the drawbacks and merits of each.

Let’s start with the ‘throw it over the fence’ approach. I would suggest this is generally favoured by IT folk who need to ‘get it out there’ and their focus is not on sustained usage or business value.

Success is generally low and adoption is by chance

MERITS
• Self-contained, no need to engage with other areas of the business prior to deployment
• Low cost – little resource required
• Enables rapid deployment
• Creates an enterprise-wide awareness (if communication channels are effective)
• Enables a swift campaign to be executed
• Meets immediate technology enablement requirements

DRAWBACKS
• Awareness does not guarantee engagement with tools
• Little understanding of how they can be utilised
• Little control over how the business will use it
• Little adoption once early motivated adopters have been engaged
• Little adoption or engagement once campaign has finished
• Little sustaining or legacy behaviours in place
• All behavioural change is by chance or self-understanding

Following on from the ‘Adoption by Chance’ approach an alternative if the ‘Formal Approach’ or adoption through hierarchy (and highly recommended if you were even thinking of taking the ‘Adoption by Chance’ approach).

The formal approach is based on:

• Engagement through leadership / key stakeholders
• Implement a formal approach (defining and delivering) to educate on the collaboration technologies.
• Refine approach and collateral as the programme develops

Adoption through hierarchy

MERITS

• Understanding of the ‘What, Why, How’ of the technology from a leadership perspective and ensuring they are fully aligned
• Colleagues ‘on the same page’ and at the same stage of the journey
• Knowledge of all available materials
• Formal support process
• Increased ability to maximize the applications available – larger number of use cases surfaced
• Ability to get access and collaborate across all areas of the business
• Comprehensive approach

DRAWBACKS

• Slow and time consuming – early motivators may lose interest
• Pace set by leadership or project team – not the users
• Too much detail – information presented won’t necessarily be applicable to all
• Too rigid
• Loss of interest increases and users drop interest of the ‘journey’
• Rational approach but doesn’t appeal to emotional interest
• Potential to be exclusive and siloed

Having looked at adoption through chance and hierarchies the final approach is by ‘social’ adoption or adoption through the tribes, networks and communities that exist within an organisation but outside the formal hierarchies.

This generally involves engagement through informal structure of companies with adoption built around explicit use cases (not abstract but rapid, high volume explicit use cases) and supported by:

• Deploy waves of rapid use cases
• ‘Word of mouth’ through networks
• Nudge channels
• Informal advocates
• Social learning

MERITS

• Rapid adoption and value gained through ‘real life’ use case development
• Limited drain on time and resource
• Rapid refinement of approach
• Inclusive
• Appeals to rational and emotional reasons for adoption
• Potential for ‘wild fire spread’ is greater
• Rapid advocate recruitment
• Fast paced and sustained – leads to more and more use cases being developed
• Appeal to ‘What’s in it for me’

DRAWBACKS

• Lack of detail and holistic knowledge of products and capabilities
• Lack of process / rigidity
• Possible limited knowledge transfer
• Not everyone aligned
• Limited leadership buy-in
• Key areas may get missed
• Reliant on skills of advocates
• Aligned to user energy, not business value