P2P

42 P E E R T O P E E R : I L T A ' S Q U A R T E R L Y M A G A Z I N E | W I N T E R 2 0 2 0 views, especially for his time. He argued that a technology should be viewed as a social system and that the acceptance of a technology hinged on resonate communication that is tuned to the mindset of its customers. In other words, one size does not fit all, especially when it comes to effective communication. Building on the Technology Adoption Lifecycle, Geoffrey Moore introduced the concept of "crossing the chasm" that describes innovations can grow up into having mass-market appeal. He expanded on the Technology Adoption Lifecycle presented by Everett Rodgers. He found that many innovations fail to gain traction in mass markets because product managers fail to consider the widely different systems that technology enthusiasts and average consumers use to value products. Whereas innovators crave unique functionality, mass markets desire products that just work. As Moore points out, failing to understand the differing mindsets of market segments puts progressive adoption of a system at risk. These psychological divides can be bridged by understanding the different mindsets of market segments, learning what appeals to them, and tuning our messaging accordingly. Interestingly, Dr. Moore holds degrees in American and English literature. He is not a technologist by training or trade, but his model that explains technology adoption pervades our industry, and his book, "Crossing the Chasm," is generally considered a must read for technology managers. It is fascinating to me, a recovering engineer, that the authors of the two most prolific models that describe the dynamics of technology adoption were not technologists. Rather they were people who studied language and communication theory. In practice, I use a simplified version of the Technology Adoption Lifecycle in my approach to rolling out systems. I divide a market into four equal segments. I use the term market to represent the stakeholders of the system. Like the Technology Adoption Lifecycle, the first segment consists of the early adopters. They tend to be a supportive group who are accepting of false starts concomitant with experimentation and rapid evolution. I partner with the early adopters to refine the fit and function of a system and to produce "quick wins." I use the evidence collected by working with the early adopters to gain credibility with the majority market. The last segment I do not spend too much time on— unless I have too—because they are happy with their flip phones and by then I have reached a point of diminishing returns. Along the way, I stay in constant contact with the business owners and the end-users to ensure the system remains aligned with the firm's strategy and with the expectations of the those who use the system. In researching the topic of technology adoption, I came across another interesting dynamic—the shift towards continuous communication. We see this in our agile approach to managing rollouts, which is increasing in popularity. Due to increasing competitive pressures, we are moving away from mechanistic methodologies that rely on collecting and documenting requirements. In its place, we conduct stand-up meetings, we gather stories, we discuss story points, and we build and deploy in rapid micro-cycles, oftentimes working in tandem with the customer. We refer to these micro-cycles as sprints. By building in tranches and staying close to our customer, we decrease risk while increasing velocity and nimbleness. We all want to be nimble so we can seize adjacent opportunities and remain relevant, but our training and scripting may be standing in our way. The waterfall methodology is commonplace because of its simplicity. It decomposes a system implementation into into logically arranged sequential phases. Inside this framework, we gather requirements, prototype, build, test, and deliver. The work progresses through its prescribed phases in sequential order, akin to a waterfall, hence its name. The approach is easy to follow, but it is poor when it comes to communication. It lacks inherent feedback loops. Once a phase has been completed, the project moves forward to the next phase. The absence of feedback loops results in one-shot, linear communications, which limits the ability to refine systems over the course of the project lifecycle. Based on the waterfall approach, conversations with management are limited to project initiation and steering committee meetings. The absence of continual conversations with management puts the system's strategic alignment at risk. Likewise, conversations with end-users are limited to the requirements gathering phase, which bears an uncanny resemblance to how we depose witnesses prior to trial. A one-shot approach to gathering requirements can alienate this critical group of stakeholders. It also subverts the ability to tailor the system to its clientele. Without tailoring, end- users may find a system to be unintuitive, which may result in significant or impassable training F E A T U R E S

• Cover