People. Process. Technology.

How many of you have been a part of a failed technology implementation? The dreaded #FAIL ? Mice were thrown in disgust, the technology labeled as the biggest POS ever conceived. Well intended people loosing their jobs & reputation, levying the blame for ushering in the technical failure. Becoming the scapegoat of such an abysmal failure it is now used as a point of reference for all things bearing a potential risk to fail? Been there or know of someone, maybe a company that carries the ugly scars of the fight to get new technology in place?

I know I'm treading rough waters here. Hell, I'm the target for many a sling and arrow. So what's your reaction when I lay down something like this:

"There is a greater than 66% chance that the cause of the failure had nothing to do with the technology."

I'm feeling a little chippy today so let me add to that... I don't care if the technology didn't work from day one. Blue screened immediately after install, broke after the first part it turned, or fell off the truck and smashed before it could be put online - either way there is still a 66% chance that the technology will fail. 

Let me turn this around a little more positively. Lets say that the next piece of design technology doesn't use a mouse or its interface. It uses a piece of DNA from each designer, plugs into your ear as an ear bud and literally becomes more of a bio mechanical extension of you. All you have to do is visualize your design and it simply starts to work. Still 66% chance of failure.

Point made? You see I'm taking note from our awesome political system here in the US - you only get people's attention if you promote the most extreme ideas on both sides of the aisle. Sensationalism here folks, put your calculators down boys, the above examples were opinions formed only from the dozens of voices in my head, not an actual scientific poll. (margin of error still +- 1 or 2 points).

People. Process. Technology. The trinity of successful technology implementations the world over. Any successful implementation of any technology (software, hardware, machines, etc) can tie its success to attention paid in equal parts to the people involved, processes analyzed and updated, so that both the people and processes can collectively take full advantage of the new technology. Look at the big brain on Rob, eh?

So lets go back three or four streams of consciousness, way back at the first question. How many of you were a part of the big #FAIL? And lets be honest with each other - was it really the technology that failed? Really? Did it have anything to do with trying to use the technology the same way you used the old one? DId you update your standards and process documents to account for changes in workflows, capacity, and throughput of the new technology? 

I hear this thing all the time in this line of business of course. Hey, we have this customer down the road who is unhappy with XYZ CAD, lets go turn them into an ABC CAD customer. Yeah! Then we'll be able to get them to say how unhappy they were with XYZ CAD and as a result anyone that reads it will never buy XYZ CAD, they will buy ABC CAD instead! Yeah! Rinse, lather repeat this with all the CAD vendors - we've all done it and unfortunately for the engineering and design community in general its all a bunch of crap.

That customer will fail at the next implementation of CAD just the same as you did the first go around and for the same reasons - none of which have anything to do with the technology. Of course we all have our strengths and weaknesses - Works has a hell of a lot of people that uses it. Edge has a nice sheet metal tool set. You'll have a hard time finding something that Creo can't model. Inventor is crazy easy to use and deploy. Example A in to Slot B, you get my point. There are very smart people, incredibly successful companies out there and they all use one of them (mentioned or not) right? 

So what makes a failed deployment of XYZ CAD at one company a resounding success at another? Update your People and Process first, then implement new Technology. You will see a greater chance of success.

Am I wrong here guys?
-Rob 

Comments

[Johan M]

you have total right Rob.....

Start every day...
Why,Where,How

Johan

[ScottMoyse]

Too true, although inevitably occasionally the software really is a POS. Not necessarily because it in itself is a POS, but because it was the wrong software for the job in the first place! What may be the best thing since sliced bread for one company may not be for the next.

One of the common scenarios is someone in upper management gets won over by a salesman, or one of their equivalently employed drinking buddies, into purchasing this great piece of software. If only they had asked the people who would be using it, or use the other piece of software its expected to communicate with.

[rob-s]

Sometimes it may work to your advantage.

Few years back I was begging for one seat of Inventor, my engineering manager would not hear any of it. One day, the management way over him, got a bunch of seats of Inventor Pro. on subscription. No one really knew their reasons, there was no consulting with the engineering. But I was happy to do the project in 3D. In the end the "hardliner" engineering manager complemented me on handling the work and going 3D.

I was converted and updated, I needed the new technology. It worked like you said Rob.

It was the stroke of luck that the my CEO golfed with an Inventor salesman.

[Will]

Delving deeper - it's impossible for technology to be the cause of failure.

Impossible.

It is always people that are at fault:

#1, Technology is created by people, thus ultimately it is the fault of the people that created the technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that failure rests with them though.

#2, As you rightly point out, the technology needs to be understood and used as intended. Having the latest mobile phone is all well and good, but drilling a hole through it to attach a piece of string like you would with a tin-can-telephone would not be using it to its best.

#3, As an end user of the software we have a responsibility to research and assess the suitability of a new technology BEFORE it is implemented. This is probably the most common pit-fall, and is an essential stage to ensuring the success and longevity of newly implemented technologies.