Are you investing in technology, or people?

Added By Kas Thomas at 6-Apr-2009 | Twitter: @KasThomas |

One of the more popular sessions at the recent AIIM show in Philadelphia was this year's "Stump the Consultant" session, in which audience members had a chance to put their toughest questions to a panel of three experts -- namely Jesse Wilkins of Access Sciences, Lisa Welchman of WelchmanPierpoint, and our own Alan Pelz-Sharpe. A lot of very good technical questions were asked. But for me, one of the most interesting questions was one that involved people, rather than technology.

The question came from somebody working for an organization with two sizable constituencies of highly educated domain experts. The company's content-management infrastructure, the questioner said, was practically nonexistent, with many company veterans accessing content via ancient command-line tools. The firm in question was very obviously in need of a modern ECM system. But there were two user-groups to contend with: Senior domain specialists (older workers) comfortable with the old-fashioned tools, who would push back on anything new; and their younger counterparts, who were clamoring for modern apps with graphical interfaces. The question: Which group do you try to placate? Which one do you dare alienate?

If you cater to the younger group (by installing a new ECM system with a modern front end), you risk alienating your most senior people -- hard-to-replace experts that you don't want to lose to the competition. On the other hand, if you cater to the older group, you risk alienating the younger workers; and you keep obsolete systems in place far longer than you should, making future replacement that much more difficult.

Lisa Welchman gave a thoughtful, incisive answer to this conundrum (one that caused the audience to really think). She advised the questioner put a new system in place that serves the needs of all, but serves the wants of the younger generation of workers. And yes, you do this even though you know it will upset some of your most senior people.

Lisa backed up her answer with some candid observations. She pointed out that older workers are less likely to quit their jobs than younger workers. They may complain about a new system, but very few (if any) will actually get up and walk out the door over it. Younger workers, on the other hand, are more mobile and more inclined to go off on their own and find another job (or start a company) when work conditions become frustrating. Older workers will retire; you'll eventually lose them anyway, no matter what you do. But if you fail to attract, nurture, and retain a dedicated corps of younger workers, you're taking chances with the company's future.

There are very few compelling reasons to leave an obsolete system in place.Placating workers who are "set in their ways" is not one of them.

Lisa's answer seemed to resonate with the audience of 80 or so mostly senior people in the room. I sensed that most audience members understood very well that you don't make IT decisions based on placating this or that stakeholder group. You do it based on the needs of the business. Sometimes that can result in favoring one constituency over another. But if that one constituency represents the future of the company, it's a no-brainer. You invest in the future, not the past.

Kudos to Lisa Welchman for handling a hard question with aplomb. Well done.

Categories: Kas Thomas, Enterprise Content Management, Building Business Case, Information Architecture