Driving happiness with technology change
“I like using Excel but these macros are a nightmare.”
I paraphrase, but this is a real example of ubiquitous technology that users are generally both comfortable with and frustrated with in equal measures all the time.
Sure, nearly everyone knows how to use a spreadsheet these days, but there are fewer and fewer people who know how to maintain effective Visual Basic macros (and before you ask, yes, I do have an old Visual Basic textbook on my bookshelf!). To me it’s old technology from the days of enterprise desktop software that no longer fits in the Digital Age where Web 2.0 is ubiquitous and Web 3.0 on the horizon.
“Why don’t you get a more modern solution?”, I asked.
“Well, apparently we have some new software available but we’re not allowed to use it.”
That got me curious…. There are people complaining about the current solution and the company invested in some new software but obviously hadn’t consulted the users. So, what on earth was the driver behind that technology change?
Some common drivers from the business that I see include:
- We can’t afford this stack anymore
- This no longer aligns to our strategic direction
- It’s so old, we can’t support it anymore
There are also some common themes that come direct from the users:
- We hate this tool
- We want to work in a different way
- We want to enjoy our work
Now, if any of these are actually relevant challenges then why is there frequently resistance to change? Why do compromises inevitably get made when someone decides it’s actually ok to change? In my experience, this usually boils down to one of two things; there are too many other higher priority things that need money first or there is no clear understanding of the extent the problem is damaging the business (and therefore it is given a lower priority).
From a purely financial perspective the decision is likely along the lines of “how much of our cash are we willing to spend today in order to get returns in the future?”
And someone will have been tasked to provide a return on investment analysis, and typically that will only consider financial aspects. Is that going to be a compelling argument? Is it even a complete picture?
Framing is important when we collect evidence for these types of decisions. The solutions we consider will differ depending on whether we’re answering the question of “what other tools could we use?”, “what is the most effective way for the people involved to achieve their work outcome?” or “what can we do to make it enjoyable for the people involved to achieve their work outcome?”
Does increased happiness driving generally higher productivity or more loyal customers make for a more compelling ROI argument? I’d argue that it does.
If you need to replace an outdated tool, don’t miss the opportunity to revisit the processes and people around the use of that tool. Any existing workflow was likely built around the available tools. Is there a better workflow and how can alternative solutions support that new workflow?
So, if you find your tech change is being driven by frustrated people then start by focusing on what will make those people happier. Rather than starting a technology change initiative, maybe think about starting a happiness change initiative and instead investigate how new technology solutions can deliver happiness to those people.
This post is an excerpt from The Change Interface Newsletter by Allan Froy. You can get articles on modern IT architecture, behavioural technology change and impactful change delivered to your inbox fortnightly by visiting https://allanfroy.com/subscribe
