I speak with various users of construction software 1bet2uthai on a daily basis. Many are very disappointed with the software they now have and want to look for new options. In most cases, their reasons are legitimate and they do, indeed, need a functional richer and technologically more advanced solution. But users who change software will be just as disappointed in the new system as they are with what they have. The reason is very basic. The users of the software simply are not properly trained to get the most out of it. This is a fact regardless of industry or company size. This article will explore a true life case of why a new software installation can fail despite the best intentions of management. The company name is not revealed for reasons of privacy.
A few years ago I worked with a medium-sized print electrical contractor that had many jobs to complete in a short time frame. Their major challenges were managing scheduling, tracking all costs to the job and being able to respond to job status when customers called. They were using very old software that lacked any of the niceties of new Windows software even as basic as having multiple users access an application at the same time. Needless to say the software was a serious hindrance to office productivity.
Of course, the simple answer was to get new software. After months of research I came across a system which, while not state of the art, was adequate to the task. I sat in on several demos and everyone concluded it looked like a good possibility. The next step was to have the primary accounting person to try out the software herself and see if she really liked it. This, however, meant burning some midnight oil because she did not have the time to test it during regular work hours, a common situation with many companies who are bringing in new software.
No one in management volunteered to work with her, on that difficult assignment so after a year, absolutely no progress had been made in evaluating that solution . Finally after 2 years, they finally acquired the software, had some initial training and started to use it. The staff, not being very sophisticated, entered all the necessary data in the new system (job cost, work orders, and progress billings, etc.) but insisted in continuing to use the old system in parallel mode for an entire year because they were afraid to let go of it. Essentially, out of needless fear, they did double work for an entire year! Why? Because no one with experience was there to manage the process.
Several important lessons were learned as a result of this wasteful process. First, key managers should be brought in to initial meetings with the vendor trainers to give them an overview of the implementation process, all strategies involved and the expected time-frame. Second, when the manager doesn’t fully buy into the process and understand the tasks and time-frame, they may not choose the employee most qualified to learn the system and to train other people, but the employee they can most do without for the ”train-the-trainer” sessions. Without the supervising managers involvement, classes were routinely skipped by staff employees and the entire training process broke down.
What the company learned was that the direct managers must be involved in the initial training sessions as well as be active participants in managing the implementation. (In a small company this means the CEO or owner.) They need to know what resources will be required to get the system up and running successfully and be prepared to commit qualified people to learn the system and to train other staff as necessary. Everyone must be motivated so they are fully committed to the success of the new system.