Do you find that end users more often embrace a technology change or resist it? Why?

Before you can answer this question properly, you must decide what end-users (I take to mean internal users, not consumers on the Web) are being asked to embrace. Too often, the technological designs and answers are virtually complete before end-users are brought into the mix. This may be because someone in the IT side used to work in the user community and believes he or she knows what the user needs, or it may just be that end users can be difficult for IT folks to work with given their tendency to be all over the map in their needs and capabilities.

In any case, users surprised with a virtual fait accompli nearly always respond warily if not downright negatively: perhaps out of their pique at not being involved earlier, and perhaps because the presented systems are actually difficult to work with and force them to make radical and unfunded changes to their operation.

On the other hand, where users (and their organizations) are made an integral part of the effort from the get-go, they more often respond positively, in many cases having made valuable suggestions for system functionality that actually improve the end result.

Having been close to both situations, I can attest that when users freak out and go up the walls, it can take months or even years to get them back to the table (I once worked with a major government agency that was so traumatized from an abortive move to XML five years earlier that they were literally terrified of trying again even though it was obvious that XML was the right path for them.) If, as in some cases, the user organizations turn out to have more corporate power than the developers, they can close down the entire effort... for good or at least until major redesign is completed. Neither case is what anyone wants for their organization, hence the caveat: "if you are going to impact parts of your organization, make the impactees part of the effort at the outset... and listen to them."

I find that users are usually willing to welcome technology change if the right approach is taken. Users need to feel comfort that their jobs are being considered and understand how they will be affected.

When technology change is approached using proper selection processes, user involvement, business process review and formal project management; all being supported by executive management then users are willing to participate and accept change.

I haven't seen a change yet that followed all these standards and had big issues with users being willing to accept the change. Companies that shortcut these processes in an effort to save money inevitably end up causing more resistance and spending more money. The mechanics behind change management and technology implementation are frequently misunderstood resulting in a detrimental long term effect on their business.

Theresa Kramarz
CEO
TLC Group, Inc.
www.tlcgroupinc.com

I think it depends on the business type - healthcare embraces it so long as a band-aid does not need to be implemented to use it - they are already over-taxed.

One key word you used was enterprise-wide - there's an important distinction between departmental and enterprise-wide change and I appreciate that you specifically used the term. I've seen more departmental change create havoc then enterprise ones. I saw an accounting department surprised by management with new tabulators on a Monday morning that left the facilities department diving into the dumpsters by lunch time to retrieve the old ones because the department rebelled against the change.

It seems that users accept enterprise-wide change more readily because they feel helpless against it since 'upper management' made the decision of change. Departmental change is generally managed closer to home, and it's easier to rebel the closer to the decision you are....IMO.

Great question - I look forward to other responses.......

There is always resistance to anything that's different and this is because our fear of the discomfort it may cause is stronger that the rational reasons which justify it.

That being said, different people have different reactions - some resist the technology itself (for instance, people may not like using Twitter or smartphones), other resist the change because it requires extra efforts from them (a new ERP which makes the company function better, but forces some people to perform activities that only add up to their daily tasks).

In conclusion, when you expect new technology, always expect resistance. But the key is to understand which forms this resistance takes, so you can create a change management strategy accordingly.

Change, whether enterprise-wide or technology in nature, is usually viewed with a "hairy eyeball". A comprehensive discussion of each change, its benefits and challenges and a down-to-earth conversation with those most directly affected seems to me to be the avenue that brings the least resistance. Honesty surrounding the impending change and what it will mean is so extremely important. Whether through training or communications vehicles or inclusivity in the change review process, the primary success factor I believe is not "sugar coating" the reality of the change. Addressing what the change means to those involved and explaining the potential for process improvement or long-term benefits is fine. However, one must eventuaslly get to the bottom line and tell it like it is. I think this equates similarly to treating a patient with a difficult circumstance. You need to tell them the truth, have them work with you to fight the problem, and then give them hope for a better day ahead.

I tend to see more resistance to change amongst the end users that I deal with. People prefer the familiar and become uncomfortable with anything new, particularly if it means that they have to change how they work or have learn new things.

Having said that, it they can see something of tangible benefit to themselves, their view point can change rapidly. The key trick is to find what it is that will motivate them to accept the newer technology.

I tried to get some sales people to use telephone headsets instead of holding the normal handset; their response was exceptionally negative. However, one person was suffering with a pulled neck muscle and had to wear a brace for several weeks making it hard to use the phone; I pointed out that the headset would be easier to use and after having tried it, this proved to be the case.

Several months later, all of the staff were using headsets; having one of their own promote the idea was the trigger that they needed. Now, if I were to suggest they give them up, I doubt that I would be very popular.