In a recent issue I raised the question: given Microsoft product security problems and the draconian methods Microsoft seems intent on employing to force users to continuously upgrade, is it time to think seriously about alternative programs? Jumping ship from Microsoft products, even to the various free alternatives, represents a big problem for must users, especially their employers.
Sharing documents was a bigger deal back when different programs- -like word processors--had difficultly reading other file formats. A lot of time and money was spent on document converters. This is less of an issue now since everyone effectively supports the file format of the current standard: Microsoft Office. But just going with Office in the first place removes compatibility as an issue. This is why WordPerfect held its dominance so long in the legal industry; WordPerfect was the de facto document standard so companies remained loyal.
The other, and bigger, problem is training. Actually, the "retraining" needed to get users up to speed with new programs and operating systems. This is not trivial no matter how inexpensive the software is. This is what I call training inertia and it's a big factor in making any kind of a software change. To a lesser extent is the problem of infrastructure, making sure that the network doesn't go down, that the routers will continue to route, the servers keep serving, as well as having an IS department that can provide support for the operating system or application. Of course support takes us back to training inertia.
Most companies have given up on trying to do effective training (if they ever tried in the first place) because it's difficult, expensive, and hard to measure the results. Here's how to do it.
Before training begins, someone totally familiar with the target software should analyze the tasks a group of employees perform. Then develop a training course, not to teach the users "how to use the software" but "how to use the software to perform their key job functions" which is a very different goal. Augment this by customizing the software to better perform the end-user group's specific tasks. I've written many a macro and custom Word interface to do just this.
To accomplish this you develop the custom courseware using real- world job examples. Then the trainer, in conjunction with the group's manager, develops a follow-up program that is implemented the minute a user returns to their desk after training. This is trickier than the courseware development itself, and involves assigned tasks that must be accomplished using the information learned in training.
Finally, to do it right you have to work out the scheduling. Training should be done so that it can be used in real-world situations as soon as training is concluded. Retention of learned skills starts falling off within hours of the training session. Therefore, Fridays should not be training days. Employees in training should be mandated to not check email, not listen to voice mail... basically not be interrupted on training days.
This is all very expensive although the results can be quite impressive. It was a much easier sell this concept when computers cost half a million dollars. Computers nowadays are cheap by comparison and the erroneous assumption is that they must therefore be easier to use. They're not really. And while the hardware is cheaper the time and expertise needed to train users to be proficient has not. But after laying all this out for many companies, both large and small, most opted for feature training, where we'd just take off-the-shelf materials and teach as many product features as possible, leaving it up to the user to figure out if any of it related to their everyday tasks. And it had to done in as short a time as possible, usually on a Friday. Sheesh.
Because of this, users looked at training as a paid day off. When they got back to their desk on Monday, under time pressure they would revert back to doing things the way they did before training (usually with the old software) and that was that. Sigh, those of you who read my stuff regularly know this is an old refrain with me.
Today companies figure that everyone does, or should, know how to use the market leader--Microsoft Office--and as new versions come out employees can just soak up the differences. Training is no longer discussed much. This adds to the training inertia and further cements Microsoft's dominance in the workplace.
Where does that leave us? Well, there are three basic reasons to adopt a new technology (read operating system or application) in the first place. To make the cost worthwhile, one of the following must be true.
1) The technology must enable a user to accomplish more work than before in the same amount of time.
2) The work product generated by the user must be of a higher quality than was generated with the previous technology.
3) It must be possible to accomplish a task not possible without the new technology.
To change from one tool to another that provides roughly the same level of technology, the only incentive is cost. Microsoft must make it so costly to stay with the tools they provide to offset the huge costs involved in overcoming training inertia. They seem to be doing just this, but while IS departments may be looking at alternatives (especially today's free ones) I don't think Microsoft has pushed them to the pain threshold necessary to make substantial numbers jump ship. Remember the old clich?, "No one ever got fired for recommending IBM." Of course, look at what happened to IBM in the personal computer market.
You can reach T.J. Lee at:
mailto:tj_lee@TheNakedPC.com
