Why 'normals' are willing to adopt new technologies

Quick shot for a busy Friday from a source that seems just about as far from HR and HR tech as possible, but I think offers a great reminder for anyone trying to effect a tech-driven change, HR or otherwise, on a group of people.

If you follow the news at all then you will certainly be aware of the rapid technological advances and the seemingly profound changes on the horizon for the personal transportation industry, i.e., the car(s) that are likely at the end of your driveway, and your relationship with them.

In short, the combination of the rapid improvement of self-driving auto technology (Google, Tesla, several other auto makers), an increase in the range, efficiency, and affordability in electric powered vehicles, (Tesla, GM), and the sudden but seemingly blanket coverage (at least in major cities), of 'ride-sharing' technology and services, (Uber, Lyft), has the potential to fundamentally change the methods and ownership of the means of personal transportation for millions, are changing the 'car' more than any time since the car replaced the horse. No one is sure exactly how all of these technological and sociological trends will collide and crash, and what the outcome will be, but most experts think that personal transportation will be markedly different in the next 20 years or so. 

The reason I thought this was interesting today, and wanted to share on the blog, was a short observation about the user adoption of modern technology pulled from a recent essay on the changes in the personal transportation ecosystem and how these changes might play out on the stratechery blog titled Cars and the Future. Check the quote below, and think about what it suggests for ANY kind of change program that you or your team is trying to implement inside your organization. (emphasis mine)

This generational pattern of adoption will, in the history books, look sudden, even as it seems to unfold ever so slowly for those of us in the here and now — especially those of us working in technology. The pace of change in the technology industry - which is young, hugely driven by Moore’s Law, and which has largely catered to change-embracing geeks - s likely the true aberration. After all, the biggest mistake consistently made by technologists is forgetting that for most people technology is a means to an end, and for all the benefits we can list when it comes to over-the-top video or a network of on-demand self-driving vehicles, change and the abandonment of long-held ideals like the open road and a bit of TV after supper is an end most would prefer to avoid.

Only the most enthusiastic technophiles care at all about the technology itself and what that technology does.

Everyone else cares only about what that technology can enable them to accomplish. It needs to help them do amazing new things, help them do the boring old things easier, faster, or cheaper, or otherwise leave them better off than they were before the introduction of the technology.

Self-driving, on-demand, electric cars might be coming soon. But for people to adopt them en masse, they have to not just be a marvel of technology and engineering. They have to make people's lives better or they won't be adopted like the experts think.

That same statement can be made for that new HR system you are thinking of implementing as well.

Have a great weekend!

User Adoption and Following Orders, Sort of the Same Thing

I almost never talk or write about changes that are made to the myriad of free online services or social networking sites that for the most part have offered tremendous benefit, access to people and information, and have generally greatly improved the overall internet experience. Facebook changes the news feed? Get over it. Twitter starts pushing ads into the timeline? Log off if that offends you. These services, while occasional straddling the line that separates personal and fun from professional and critical to one's business and livelihood; are still free to adopt, to use, and to leave.Get in line.

No one has to be on Facebook, or Skype, or Dropbox, or any other service of their type. So if you decide you no longer like the rules of the game, due to some new or changed features, some additional loss of the illusion of online privacy many people still like to cling to, or perhaps a free service has decided that to actually continue to offer their service they have to generate some revenue and start charging for what had previously been free; then typically walking away, (or finding an alternate service), is your only option.

What started me down this line of thought was when last night I logged into what is still my favorite resource on the web - Google Reader, to find that -  Hurray!, I'd received the new and improved version of the venerable RSS Reader, with an improved layout, cleaner interface, and the removal of the limited 'social' features in Reader, (following people and sharing posts), with the now ubiquitous G+ sharing button. Checking my Google Reader - 'Items Shared by my Friends' list was usually the very first thing I'd do when checking Reader.  I'd been following about 75 or so people, mostly friends and colleagues from the HR industry, and do a quick scan and review of the few dozen or so posts these friends had shared in Reader that day often provided an excellent summary of the news and buzz from the day. It was my 'go-to' place online, and now of course it is gone. 

Again, I, (nor anyone else), is really allowed to whine and complain when free services change the rules of the game. I am free to find another RSS reader, convince all my 75 reader friends to share items there, set up some kind of G+ Circle to replicate the sharing function on Reader, (like that will ever happen), or do something else entirely if I feel like my online experience is irreparably harmed. It's Google's ball, their field, their rules.

Google, or any other large online service, knows that any changes they make will understandably tick off some subset of their users. They make the call on changes by balancing the ire of the (small) group of angry users with the larger business strategies they feel are important, and by (usually), offering more and better functionality and capability somewhere else. They try to do a good job of warning users about these changes, of communicating the benefits of the 'new thing' that is coming, and doing the best job they can of helping users manage through the change.

But what Google, and even those of us inside organizations that are charged with developing or deploying new technologies, (often at the expense of old technologies), sometimes forget is that even the oldest, most arcane, most underused piece of technology or functionality still likely has some incredibly active and passionate supporters. Google doesn't really have to care all that much about this, I can't convince them to re-activate sharing and following in Reader,  but inside organizations, the truth is user adoption, when 'forced', is often problematic and slow.

It is no secret that change is hard, and technology change can be even harder. Don't compound the problem by forgetting to empathize, at least a little, with those people whose worlds are having change thrust upon them.

Big Red Button, (you know you'll click it)

In the flurry of announcements and product launches in the consumer electronics market that preceded and accompanied the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, you may have missed a little announcement from Netflix, buried in a sea of news and reports about tablets and more tablets.

Last week the internet subscription and streaming service for movies and TV shows announced that streaming of Netflix supplied content to TVs would soon be made even easier, as a number of leading manufacturers like Panasonic, Sony, and Toshiba have agreed to place Netflix-branded one click buttons on remote controls for internet connected TVs, Blu-ray disc players, and other devices that connect the internet to TV.

For Netflix customers, this makes accessing and streaming content even easier and more convenient; for non-Netflix customers the simple act of grabbing the remote to fire up the TV will present an opportunity to raise interest and awareness in the service, and perhaps win over a few more converts. Heck, how many people, even if they had no idea what the big red button actually did, could resist pushing it at least once to find out what may happen. Instead of reading 'Netflix', the button could probably read, 'Don't click this', and lots of people would give it a go anyway.

I have posted about Netflix once before, in the context of how the Netflix subscription and streaming models, with their flexibility and low switching costs could be a sign of things to come in the enterprise and workforce technology spaces.  I think the 'Netflix' button getting placement on TV remotes offers up another potential lesson for both technology solution design as well as for HR professionals challenged with getting their messages seen and heard.

The remote is the launch point for the TV viewer's experience, and Netflix, wanting to be an active and engaged part of that experience is moving to bring forward their position from a place buried in a series of menu commands, to a simple and enticing 'Click here' button. Netflix knows there are competing with the almost limitless choices that a consumer of entertainment has, so by positioning themselves closer to the decision point, they will improve their chances of being considered, and consumed.

Just as the TV viewer navigates through these options before making a selection, most information worker types start their workdays also presented with a plethora of items competing for their attention. Start on last night's 22 new emails, check voice mail, have a look if anyone left donuts in the coffee room, and so on. And as the typical day progresses, the competition for attention intensifies, and the chances for any singular message or meaning cutting through the activity and noise are likely diminished.

You as the HR professional, or the technologist attempting to cut through this clutter and have your message resonate, or have your new and snappy system for collaboration or learning or whatever actually connect with the people you are convinced it would help may want to consider the 'Netflix' remote.

The key - don't have your message or your feature swimming in a sea of similar message and options. If you believe it is truly important, and you have the guts to stand by that determination, then find a way to make it stand out, make your message or your new tool the equivalent of the big, red,' I dare you not to click me', super intriguing Netflix button. Get your link to the new tech tool on the user's home page, get the CEO to sign up and petition others as well.  Make your pitch boldly and differently.

Don't let your idea get lost somewhere between 'Pause' and 'Mute'.

The people that actually use the technology

Last week amid much hype, Apple unveiled their long-awaited tablet computer, dubbed the iPad.

Pause for a moment while the 'feminine hygiene' product jokes mill about for a second in your head.  Are you ready now? Good.

Almost immediately after the details of the product were revealed, a seemingly collective shriek was emitted from various technology news sites, pundits, and longtime fans of Apple.  Most of this outcry was centered on the perceived shortcomings of the iPad.

No camera?  No ability to multi-task?  No USB ports?  And on and on.

One clever post compares the iPad to a rock, with the iPad only coming out ahead by the slimmest of margins.

These criticisms are nearly entirely focused on a cohort of individuals that want the iPad to be a more complicated device.  One that would require a more skilled operator, that would likely fail more frequently, and one that would be more difficult for inexperienced or disinterested users to fully leverage.

And yes, to some (maybe more that I want to admit) users these the absence of these more advanced and complex capabilities render the iPad superfluous and unnecessary. Let's call these people 'power users'.

But for many, the ease of use, anticipated fast web browsing experience, and the simplicity with which their desired tasks can be completed on the iPad will offer a compelling value proposition. Calling up a web site, checking e-mail promise to be faster, easy, and dirt simple. Let's call these people 'casual users'.

So we have on one hand the vocal but relatively few 'power users' clamoring for more and better everything, and what is likely a far wider (and quieter) population of 'casual users' who will likely find the iPad a pretty amazing little device.  The iPad will likely sell millions of units despite these criticisms,(remember many of these same power users thumbed their noses at the first iPod).

I think there are some lessons in all this that enterprise Human Resources technology creators and implementers can learn from the iPad and from consumer technology, popular consumer web sites, and public social networks in general.

For me, the lesson is this:

In the enterprise of say 10,000 people that are the planned users of workforce technology (e.g. a performance management system), maybe 100 or so people could be placed in the category of 'power users'. They need the most advanced functionality, can adapt to a less than intuitive design, and often are willing to spend long periods of time learning how to use the technology.

The other 9,900 or so people are 'casual users'.  Ease of use, simplicity, clear workflows and speed in which tasks can be completed are of primary importance. Use of workforce technologies are almost never their 'job', they are meant to be compliments to help them perform their jobs better.  They technologies can't be seen as a burden, time suck, and require lengthy and frequent pauses to ask for assistance in their use.  And the power users probably can't help all of them anyway, there are simply too many of them to effectively serve.

When an organization deploys workforce technologies to ALL 10,000 employees, the needs, concerns, capabilities, and attitudes of the casual users are of utmost importance.  But it is almost exclusively the power users, and their management that participate in the vendor evaluations, make the purchase and design decisions, and (often) are influenced by which solution has the most of everything.

But for the casual users of most workforce technologies having the most capability does not matter, only the right capability does.  For the vast majority of these users, their real jobs are creating, fixing, selling, answering, not interacting with the latest features in the performance management tool.

The iPad, as has been pointed out everywhere, does not have the most capability, but for a large population of casual users it may have the right ones, and while critics, pundits, and technology experts are all taking turns bashing the iPad, it may very well be that Apple knows what it is doing and is hitting the perfect balance of features, usability, and design that these casual users want.

Workforce technologies should always keep that balance in mind.