"Rushing licences to people with no operating model change is just a more expensive way to stall." This hit the nail on the head; tech only amplifies the culture and workflows you already have in place!
Your line about tech only amplifying the culture you already have nails it, and it's why "what are we making better" usually stays a slogan: teams answer it with a guess instead of an actual before-and-after measurement.
That's the part we treat as its own separate step, because a guess is exactly what stalled the rollout in the first place.
For sure, it's better to be open and honest, the worst is when leaders dance around the end game of what sort of headcount numbers and skill profiles will be required...
Yes I think that when you think about the failure patterns and realise the effort required, a lot of people take shortcuts then wonder why they end up with project failure!
"Rushing licences to people with no operating model change is just a more expensive way to stall." This hit the nail on the head; tech only amplifies the culture and workflows you already have in place!
Your line about tech only amplifying the culture you already have nails it, and it's why "what are we making better" usually stays a slogan: teams answer it with a guess instead of an actual before-and-after measurement.
That's the part we treat as its own separate step, because a guess is exactly what stalled the rollout in the first place.
Yes! That summed it up well!
Focus on the people and why they're not adopting the technology, rather than just throwing tools at them and forcing them to use it.
Exactly! I know you and I are on the same page :)
Yes, licenses for everyone but no focus on how their day gets easier is a recipe for disaster
100%!!
The three questions work because they force a conversation before the rollout instead of after the pushback.
Most change fails quietly when people can't see what's in it for them, not loudly when the tool breaks.
Naming who gains capacity and who loses status is the part most leaders skip because it's uncomfortable, not because it's hard.
Redesigning the workflow instead of bolting AI onto the old one is the difference between adoption and compliance theater.
Thanks for sharing, Bastian!
The third question cuts through all the licensing talk. "How will we do this properly" really means "are we redesigning this or just adding cost?"
Exactly, that question can save you a lot of money and time
You can’t tell people AI will “free up their time” and expect them not to wonder what happens once all that time has been freed up.
For sure, it's better to be open and honest, the worst is when leaders dance around the end game of what sort of headcount numbers and skill profiles will be required...
Yes, it’s better and definitely more work up front which is why so many avoid it, don’t you think?
Yes I think that when you think about the failure patterns and realise the effort required, a lot of people take shortcuts then wonder why they end up with project failure!
exactly! We are seeing the same thing