I. Skipping the Readiness Phase Ironically Delays Time-to-Value
In our short-term centric world, many organizations skip the critical stage of aligning
commitment to a software-enabled change. In addition, little thought is given to the implications of process changes required or dictated by a software deployment. Ironically, the perceived up front time-savings are more than offset during and after implementation. This occurs because higher levels of user resistance are encountered and unknown impacts disrupt operations and derail desired benefits.

II. Effective Usage Requires Ongoing Investments and Attention
In reality, most significant, sustainable changes take about 18 months to take hold and settle into the bottom line. Many organizations often use all their money and ‘attention capital’ in the implementation stage and fail to achieve full value realization. To achieve full value realization ongoing investments are required for areas such as training and support. Also, executive sponsors need to continue managing ‘mind-share’ after deployment by communicating to employees how effective usage is benefiting the organization.

III. An Organization’s Capacity for Change Dictates How Fast Benefits Can be Realized
Capacity for change is the limiting factor for organization’s attempting more than just automating business as usual. Many organization’s struggle because their leadership/management teams are adept in functional disciplines (sales, product development, etc.), but less so in the discipline of change. A related misunderstanding is the perception that change leadership can be delegated to the core implementation team, it cannot. Change leadership is a shared responsibility through all levels of management.

I. Driving Organizational Commitment
Managing expectations and concerns accelerates Effective IT Adoption and helps avoid unnecessary adoption risks. Ideally, organizational commitment efforts will position stakeholders as owners of software-enabled process change and less as its victims.

• Market the Value – quantify and repeatedly communicate the value of effective usage to the organization and develop “what’s in it for me” messaging for critical stakeholders
• Proactively Influence Stakeholders – create opportunities for stakeholder involvement, design usage metrics and incentives to align behavior towards buy-in
• Maintain Strong Governance – execute active executive sponsor involvement, define performance outcomes to direct and track success, hold managers accountable for progress

II. Building Supportive Operational Capabilities

• Developing supportive operational capabilities significantly enhances a software solution and requires more effort than just software usability training.
• Refine the Operating Model – formally assign decision rights, define new roles and ensure responsibilities are understood, revisit organizational structures
• Enhance Change Leadership – develop manager’s communication and expectation management skills, assign dedicated transition management resources
• Develop User Skills – enhance domain specific skills, increase decision management competency to provide actionable insights

III. Tailoring the software solution to the unique character of the host organization
Tailoring the solution requires more than just defining feature requirements. Keeping the organization’s unique culture and business needs at the forefront of solution deployment decisions increases the likelihood of success.

• Consciously choose the process maturity jump – decide whether you are automating business as usual or increasing process capability, understand the impacts of process maturity jumps, invest in workflow and data models before deploying software
• Focus software enabled capabilities on high-value areas – define a combination of pain points and desired business capabilities to prioritize functionality deployment, deploy functionality that is highly valued by front-line employees early to create momentum
• Develop Capability-Based Deployment Plans – account for internal deployment bandwidth, factor in time to stabilize the foundational functionality

I. User ‘Feature Fatigue’ from Faster and More Frequent Upgrade Cycles
Software vendors tend to think of upgrades as a good thing for customers. The logic is more functionality equals more benefits. The SaaS model allows for accelerated release cycles. When these release cycles are constantly used for functionality and usability enhancements users can become disgruntled with their moving target and disengage from using the software.

II. Increased Organizational Complexity from Multiple Configurations
In large enterprises, various divisions/departments have specialized business needs for their software. The ease of user-driven configuration with the SaaS model can result in some organizations having many different configurations in their organization. This is problematic for organizations that are attempting to drive process consistency across the enterprise. Also, ‘power users’ driving configurations can chase off mainstream users who declare the deployment too complex and/or cumbersome.

III. Fragmented Business Disciplines from Incomplete Process Coverage and Siloed Data
SaaS price points and functional simplicity are enablers for grass-root, viral adoption. As the software expands into the organization some users conclude that the deployed functionality is incomplete in the context of their entire business discipline. In addition, the absence of IT involvement can result in siloed data that prevents actionable insights being developed. Both these potential adoption risks create the perception that the software is less valuable to the organization, which ultimately results in users opting-out.