PL  |  NL  |  FR  |  ES  |  PT  |  IT  |  DE  |  DK  |  NO  |  SE  |  FI  |  GR  |  JP  |  CN  |  KR  |  RU  |  AE

  Report this article

More information

Financial coaching can effectively increase financial awareness

In These Current Economic Times Do Small or Large Businesses Have the Advantage

Your Corporate History Is Your Future: Keep It Moving Forward and Public

You can have your translations done by people who know the business

Forewarning: A Bank's Best Assets Are Trained Tellers

Challenging Business Leaders To Be Trainers

Nightmare on Compliance Street

4 Business Models that Make Better Opportunities for You

Quantitative and Qualitative Metrics

Disclosing financial activity to outsourcing companies

MLM training material

How to Save on Costs While Growing Your Business

Are You An Entrepreneur Who Needs Financing

The corporate scenario described in this article is an example of a common problem in the development of management support systems: in both systems design and implementation, too little attention is given to the needs and perspectives of the end user. Inadequate attention to ease of use in system design and lack of appropriate training and conversion preparedness affect applications aimed at salespeople, production people, administrators, middle managers, and senio r management. These shortcomings can be observed in companies across all types of industries.

ROLLING OUT A NEW SYSTEM — ONE CORPORATE SCENARIO

A major investment company developed a new system that allows its portfolio analysts to obtain detailed analysis of the performance of a particular portfolio with comparisons to relevant industry benchmarks. The new system is a significant improvement over the current approach, and the company feels that it will provide a major competitive edge in acquiring and maintaining new customers. The rollout of the new system was planned for the beginning of the year, and more than 200 portfolio analysts in 20 locations throughout the world were to be involved.

Six months after the rollout, the company returned to the old system. Portfolio analysts found the new system difficult to use, leading to serious delays in sending statements to customers. Consequently, the company decided to postpone the conversion until problems could be resolved. The systems developers claimed the problems resulted from a lack of understanding on the part of the analysts, whereas the portfolio analysts said the new system was too complicated and prone to errors. Part -time portfolio analysts in particular, who represent a significant portion of intended users, complained that the system was extremely difficult to use, and that what little training was provided was geared toward full-time employees.

Delays and Added Costs

Management estimates that system implementation will be delayed for nine months to a year. Some systems changes are envisioned, but the major difference planned in the future rollout is the formulation and delivery of a training program that first will be tested with a small but representative group of portfolio analysts and then extended to the entire staff before declaring the system ready to be used by all.

The cost of additional system tuning and training is significant: it includes the redesign work to make the system more usable, the training design and delivery

time on the part of the training group, the time the portfolio analyst group will spend in training, and the cost of hiring temporary help that may be required during the training period. Furthermore, although no specific monetary value has been assigned to it, the delay in obtaining a competitive portfolio analysis program could threaten the competitive position of the company. However, there is no question in the minds of developers that the benefits of the new system (i.e., increased level of business and the ability of the analysts to handle more accounts) will still more than justify the added training and conversion costs.

Although this scenario is only one example, it is typical of a real problem that is common in the development of management support systems — in both system design and system implementation, too little attention is given to the needs and perspectives of the end user.

For a good fit between an application and its intended users, designers must either create the system to fit the end user or develop a training and support program to make the end user fit the application. Attacking the problem both in design and in implementation ensures the highest probability of success. This article describes strategies that help companies ensure a good fit between an application and its intended users.

DESIGNING SYSTEMS TO FIT THE END USER

Three major factors affect the fit between an application and an end user:

1. The relative advantage of the application to the end user vis -a-vis whatever systems they were using previously

2. The relative technical complexity of the application compared to the end user’s level of experience or comfort

3. The relative compatibility of the application with other day-to-day activities of the end user

Relative Advantage

Relative advantage addresses the questions, What is in it for the end users? Why should they use the new application? Will it allow them to better service clients and collect larger commissions?

Most users hope that an application will make their lives easier and help them to do their jobs better so that they will be justly rewarded. Users do not want to interact with applications that will isolate them from their fellow workers or allow management to better oversee and micromanage their daily activities.

Although developers usually do not consciously create applications that negatively impact users, sometimes it is necessary to develop applications that can, for example, increase the ability of management to monitor and control the employee. If this type of system must be developed, this fact must be dealt with both in system design and implementation. To reach a solution or compromise, there must be a close working relationship between system designers and intended users.

If a system must be developed that has negative ramifications for the users, one possible solution is to have the end user directly share in the benefits that fall to the organization as a whole (i.e., through bonuses or a similar reward). During training and implementation, trainers need to try to make the end users understand and identify with the overall gains to the organization.

Relative Technical Complexity

The relative technical complexity of an application refers to the level of technical sophistication that proper use of the application assumes in the end user. Whereas an airline reservation representative who is used to working with multiscreened systems with cryptic symbol input and output might find a new application with a similar interface easy to learn, the high school student working at McDonald’s probably would not.

As with relative advantage, to ensure system success, there must be a clear vision of the technical experience and educational sophistication of the intended users. Again, if a system must be built that stretches the technical abilities of the end user, this discrepancy must be addressed during training and implementation.

Relative Compatibility

The relative compatibility of an application refers to its fit with the end user’s other frequently used applications. For example, the new application may not define customer and product information in the same way that other applications do, which would require some retraining. The new system should fit with the way the end user is accustomed to viewing the world, rather than require the end user to keep two “sets of books.” If the new systems do not mesh easily with other systems and procedures with which the end user is familiar, this is a strong indicator of the need for substantial training.

The best-case development scenario would result in systems that have a high relative advantage for the end user, that are not complex compared with the end user’s capabilities, and that fit with the other activities, perspectives, and systems of the end user. To do so, it is critical for the system designers to be able to see the application from the perspective of the end user. The important point to realize is that ease of use is defined differently by systems developers who are experts and accustomed to dealing with complexity and by intermittent users who want to spend as little time as possible handling systems problems.

Users Are All Different Complicating the issue of understanding the end- user perspective is the fact that there is never a single, monolithic end user. End users possess differing levels of expertise, patience, and dedication. Some will spend most of their day inputting and inquiring directly into the system. Others will be intermittent users.

Also, some systems cross corporate boundaries, involving either suppliers or customers. Therefore, the range of expertise extends from experts to intermittent users, and includes individuals directly under the control of the organization and others who are not. Some of the latter users can often be the most important to business success. If its systems are too difficult to use, a company may face the loss of valued customers.

The requirement to understand the end-user perspective in all its complexity is a strong argument for embedding systems analysts within end-user organizations, where they can get to know and identify more closely with the end users. It is also an argument for using a prototyping approach to systems design whenever possible to obtain user feedback as often as possible. Highly structured applications (i.e., transaction processing systems) should prototype the user interface. Where applications are less structured (i.e., decision support systems or executive support systems), designers would want to prototype both the user interface and as many aspects of system functionality as possible.

USABILITY LABS

One interesting approach to better understanding the end-user perspective was developed by an insurance company that set up a usability lab. Although the company emphasizes a user-centric design approach, it wanted to do more to ensure system acceptance and use by the end-user community. Thus, after systems are developed, the lab is used to test the applications for usability with typical users prior to system release.

The various classes of users are identified and scheduled for lab sessions. The lab is equipped with movie projectors to record body language and facial expressions as well as to time the various operations. The videotapes are carefully reviewed by those responsible for the eventual system rollout to learn what they can about difficulties and training issues. If the lab experience indicates that changes are required, they are made and the results tested again.

Multiple Data Interfaces

An interesting offshoot of the usability lab is the concept of providing more than one user interface to an application. Historically, systems designers have focused on a single interface to be used by all users regardless of their positions within the company, their degree of computer literacy, or their frequency of use. One size does not fit all, however.

Although it is generally true that 80 percent of the usage is accomplished by 20 percent of the users, the intermittent users may be quite significant to the overall success of the application. Also, intermittent users may be very influential within their organizations.

A simple example is the experience a well-positioned professor had when trying to use the college library’s new search tool. The professor needed only one book, for which he knew the name and author. However, he still had to:

1. Log onto the school network

2. Get to the school home page

3. Click on the library navigator

4. Click on the library catalog

5. Click on local library

6. Click on search the catalog

7. Type in the title of the book

8. Click on search

9. Click on view

The professor was frustrated by the amount of time it took him, as a seasoned user, to access the information he needed. He suggested that IS place an icon on every faculty and student desktop that gets them to step 6 or 7 in one click, or the setup of a few stations in the library that are set to stay on step 6 or 7.

The system that was developed was suitable for first -time users, but not for frequent users. Having multiple interfaces can prove a valuable feature for many systems, particularly when the user base is heterogeneous.

DEVELOPING TRAINING AND SUPPORT ROGRAMS

Whether or not systems are designed to fit the end user, training and support programs can be an effective way to create a fit between a new system and its users. When developing training and support programs, it is important to consider the relative advantage, complexity, and compatibility of the system. Other factors that should be considered include the type of user (intermittent versus power user), the user’s cognitive style, and the user’s position in the organization.

Marketing a New System to the User

When implementing a system that does not provide direct advantage to the end user, but is important to the larger organization, a well-orchestrated training program can be one way to market the new system.

For example, a consumer products organization recently implemented a sales force automation system that greatly reduced the lead time to move orders on the books to the factory. When implementing the system, they found it was difficult to get the sales representatives to attend scheduled training classes. Given their compensation plans, salespeople preferred to spend time with customers, not in classes. The IS organization discovered that the most effective way to reach the sales force was to attend its regularly scheduled sales meeting. Training for the new applications was delivered in one to two hour modules during the sales meeting.

Training Users with Fewer Technical Skills

There are several effective ways to implement an application that exceeds the technical sophistication of end users. First, a training program could be developed that upgrades the skills of the end users, concentrating on the shortcomings between their existing skills and those required by the application. As a second option, a more technically sophisticated employee who is specifically seeking out those skills required by the new system might be hired. A third option, which has been successful in a number of companies, has been to develop user teams consisting of one or more sophisticated users and one or more less-experienced people.

Improving the Fit of New Applications

In cases where the new application is not particularly compatible with other applications that end users employ or activities that they routinely conduct, consideration must be given to redesign of the other applications and activities to improve fit. Where this is not possible, an aggressive training program, possibly linked to the evaluation and incentive program, would be useful.

USER DIFFERENCES

Beyond targeting a training program at addressing areas where the fit between the application and potential end users is poor, designers must also realize that people learn in different ways, and that no one generic training program is likely to succeed with the total population. Users may differ because of the frequency with which they interact with the application. Users of the same systems may also represent different levels of authority in the organization.

User Intelligences

One school of thought says that people have different types of “intelligences,” with different parts of the brain controlling different abilities. For example, some people learn better from pictures than from words. Thus, the most effective training program would take into consideration the different learning approaches of the enduser population.

The theory of multiple intelligences, developed by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner, is recognized by corporate America and is being used by companies, including General Motors, Saturn Corp., and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Gardner suggested there are seven intelligences — linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Gardner’s work can be used to develop computer-learning techniques. Individuals with high logical- mathematical or musical intelligence do best with programmed instruction; those with high linguistic intelligence do best with written documentation; those with high spatial intelligence prefer to start with the big picture and a fast overview; and those with bodily kinesthetic intelligence prefer a hands-on, do-ityourself, trial-and-error approach. Although this is an oversimplification and it is apparent that most people have more than one kind of intelligence, it should be obvious that, to be as effective as possible, a training program will take into consideration the preferred learning styles of the end users.

Motivating Users to Learn

Another factor in developing an educational program is timing. The frenetic wall-towall meeting style and activity load in businesses today make it difficult to pique the interest of people if there is not a pressing reason for learning. Thus, it is important to schedule the training when there is motivation for learning, for example, when the new system will be rolled out. The just-in-time element is a needed motivator to capture the attention of those involved.

The use of inside versus outside trainers depends on the in-house capabilities. If available, insiders who are familiar with the company and its culture can probably do the job better. However, it may be better to go outside than to stretch the capabilities of the inside staff.

Content is a vital factor in the effectiveness of training. For the most part, a discussion aimed at the basic level of how to interact with a new system should begin with and include a description of the total system — why it was designed and implemented, the major objectives, the connection with other systems, and overriding elements of the system.

For example, a large bank has recognized that its employees have differing training styles and training needs. If executives need to use systems, which in this organization is infrequent, a trainer is dispatched to deliver training one-on-one. Although traditional classroom training is still offered, the bank has migrated toward multimedia training where a computer is coupled with video and audio. The bank has found multimedia training to be effective because of the richness of the media and because it allows people to try out the system and make mistakes. Another advantage of the computer-based multimedia training is that it allows people to complete the training when they need it, not on a schedule.

THE COSTS OF IGNORING USABILITY AND TRAINING ISSUES

The investment firm scenario provides an example of the types of problems that can emerge when the end-user perspective is ignored; however, there have been a number of studies identifying the high costs associated with end-user difficulty with new systems. One study in particular by Nolan, Norton & Company reported by CIO magazine examined the costs of end-user computing over a six- month period. The study involved ten major companies in a variety of industry settings, including Ford Motor Company, Cigna Corp., and Xerox Corp. The study found that the measured cost per workstation ran from $2,000 to $6,500 per year, which included the cost of PC and LAN hardware, software, peripherals, dedicated central IS personnel, and technology and personnel support of the host or server environment. It was emphasized that these were the measured costs.

The startling conclusion of their study was that the so-called unmeasured costs, which consisted of “peer-support costs,” averaged two and one-half times the measured costs, or from $5,000 to $15,000 per year. Peer-support costs comprise the time value of non-IS personnel who render guidance and assistance to their peers in the use of applications.

Lack of application fit with the end user and lack of proper training programs are the main culprits of the peer-support phenomenon. As the use of systems continues to extend to a broader and more diverse population of end users, these hidden peersupport costs, as well as the costs of outright implementation failures, will continue to grow.

CONCLUSION

This article opened with a description of a company that had considerable difficulty rolling out an important new system to its portfolio analysts. The cause of the problem was lack of consideration for the classes of users. Also, training prior to the rollout was not emphasized to the degree that it should have been.

Three factors that affect the fit of the application and the end user include the relative advantage, technical complexity, and compatibility of the system from the end user’s perspective. Systems developers often neglect to consider these elements properly. They have become more important over time as information technology has evolved from central control to the democratization of computing, putting users in direct contact with both input and output.

Furthermore, the advent of business process reengineering and client/server computing has created additional users out of those who formerly handed off computer contact to others. The use of systems prototyping and gaining early user feedback are critical to successful system rollout. Also, the development of a usability lab can be an effective tool to assess user reaction before systems roll out. Multiple interfaces to handle different classes of users are also helpful.

Organizations should preplan training programs to be implemented before new systems are rolled out. Training should emphasize flexibility of timing and approach, and should be carefully tailored to the intended audience. People learn differently depending on their individual cognitive styles. One size does not fit all; yet in many cases this truth is not heeded because of timing or cost considerations. The stakes are high when the hidden costs of a user workstation exceed the known costs — a situation greatly influenced by lack of proper attention to the usability of systems and effective training programs.