Adoption & Effective Use

"Driving Adoption" vs. "Driving Sense and Benefit"

Betrand eloquently discussed the problem with driving adoption, AND gives a better way to think about it:

Adopt what ? New tools, new practices. One by one ? Both at the same time ? That’s the chicken and egg situation and, at the end, this doesn’t matter here.

Pilot what ? The adoption ! Actually not. And this is where resides the mistake that kills many projects.

If adoption must be a personal and deliberate act, conditioned by sense, real and understandble benefits, that’s not adoption that has to be driven but sense and benefits.

The truth is that, deliberately or not, adoption was used as a substitute for sense and alignment. So sense and alignment have to be driven, because there are ways to have a hold over them provided one has the will and the courage to make the appropriate efforts.

How to do ?

– Focus on people’s real problems, which are often linked to daily operations. This implies a social routine is implemented, not in replacement for processes and workflows but around them.

– avoid having conflictual strategies. In other words, the “social software project” should not drive people in directions that are opposite to the way they are measured and rewarded.” (emphasis in original)

My Comments
1. In my book, User Adoption Strategies, I recommend getting rid of the phrase “driving adoption” and using “encouraging adoption” instead. I think this works better as a mindset and ethos for adoption of new tools and approaches.

2. Having said that, “encouraging” is too wooly for many corporate types. They want something to “drive.” Bertrand has the answer – drive the “sense” and “benefit” to be gained. I like the distinction.

1 reply »

  1. As my 4 year old says, “Drats!” I hate it when what appears to be a semantic difference in language is actually very meaningful. Why? Because now I’ve got to go back through all my blog posts and substitute ‘drive adoption’…
    Keep posting Michael!