1. MEDIADIMENSION
Copyright 2009, MEDIA Dimension
W H I T E P A P E R
How to convert SAP users from
loathing to loving their system
in three months or less
Eliminating the five natural
layers of resistance to change
SYNOPSIS: This paper reveals flaws — deep-seated
flaws that even many SAP consultants and trainers are
unaware of — in the method traditionally used to manage
SAP deployment that inadvertently cause and inflate user
resentment. This paper then argues an alternative approach
that organisations can use to ensure that SAP finally
delivers on its full productivity and performance potential.
Learn & Apply Adopt Perform

2. 1
Contents
Introduction
This isn’t really happening...
Despite IT’s best efforts, gaining user
acceptance after SAP is deployed can prove
difficult. When it doesn’t occur, the result is
typically persistent errors and reduced
efficiencies.
Council of war
User unhappiness tends to lead to people
subverting SAP. To give themselves the
best chance of reversing this, should IT
adapt the users to the process, or the
process to the users?
The core conflict
People — even in IT — tend to be
pragmatists. But is pragmatism hurting
the best-practice implementation of SAP?
Debunking the myth
The fear of change is often proposed as
the cause of user resistence to SAP. But
is change something that is automatically
resisted in all cases?
Resolving the conflict
Inadvertent compromise (when none is
needed) is often the key to SAP
deployment problems. Recognising this
offers a new way forward for SAP business
managers.
Why people can change
People work best when motivated by
personal benefit. SAP deployments must
recognise this and prove to users how
change will help their personal workflow.
The Infliction Approach
SAP deployment training sometimes
neglects the holistic view, leaving staff
underprepared for change. The result
is user resentment and pushback.
The Collaborative Approach
An approach that connects behaviours with
consequences can eliminate user actions
that undermine the effectiveness of SAP
and deliver the returns companies crave.
Success
Users reverting to legacy systems are a
thorn in the side of SAP project managers.
However, intensive training that emphasises
SAP’s benefits and shows how cause leads
to effect can coax users to switching fully.
The next step
Companies demand maximum return on
investment. The Collaborative Approach
offers renewed hope for organisations
struggling to make SAP fulfil its promise
of greater efficiency and cost effectiveness.
2
3
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
13
14

3. 2
Introduction
enerally speaking, SAP deployments these days
proceed well enough.
Yet, almost unnoticed by many of us, some
deployments suffer from a disconcerting issue.
It’s difficult to pin down the cause. It’s virtually
impossible to combat. And it’s something you could never
have anticipated.
It’s user resentment.
As this paper will prove, user resentment eats away at the
effectiveness of SAP and prevents companies from enjoying
maximum return on investment.
Fact is, you invest millions in top-of-the-line SAPsoftware
so you can bring down costs, improve productivity and gain
a competitive advantage.
You thought users would fall in love with it.
With some focused training, the SAP consultants told you,
obtaining and passing information would become infinitely
easier and error free. Procurement would never again lose
orders. Invoicing or producing financials would be a breeze.
All this and more — and neither staff, customers nor
management would ever look back!
Instead, you’ve found — through no fault of your own
— that the reality is slightly less rosy.
Instead, you endure persistent low-level difficulties
— mysteriously incomplete or inaccurate data and constant
interdepartmental infighting and buck passing.
And, mostly, it’s caused by user resentment.
Naturally, you want to know: what’s the cause?
And, more importantly, how do you fix it?
This paper attempts to fill in the gaps and answer these
very questions.
It reveals flaws — deep-seated flaws that even many
SAP consultants and trainers are unaware of — in the
method traditionally used to manage SAP deployment that
inadvertently cause and inflate user resentment.
This paper then argues an alternative approach that
organisations can use to ensure that SAP finally delivers on
its full productivity and performance potential.
If the argument presented in this paper is true, the
implications for industry are considerable.
If, as argued, the traditional management of SAP
deployment (what we call the Infliction
Approach) inadvertently sows the
seeds of staff resentment, it follows that
this method is actually short-changing
companies out of a tremendous amount
of productivity over the medium and
long term.
It’s not that SAP consultants are
being untruthful about the benefits of SAP. As this paper
will show, it’s just that the experts have had the wrong ideas
about how users adjust to change, and the best way to manage
that process — and this has led to inflated expectations all
round.
The good news, though, is that a new and alternative
approach (what we call the Collaborative Approach) has the
potential to remedy this situation, delivering the measurable
productivity and cost-control benefits that companies crave.
G
User resentment eats away at the effectiveness
of SAP and prevents companies from enjoying
maximum return on investment.
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N

4. 3
This isn’t really happpening
THE COMPANY — FRIDAY, 9.20AM SAP
PROJECT MANAGER’S OFFICE
ost people love Fridays. Lately, though, SAP
Project Manager Roger Miller had begun to dread
them.
Friday was the day that Roger had to meet each
of the departmental heads in his company and discuss the
status of the SAP implementation. Lately, it had been a
one-way street of inaccurate data and ever-increasing staff
unhappiness.
The transition to the new, best practice system had been
supposed to be smooth.
After all, he, his team and every department across the
company had engaged in an extensive planning process,
streamlining outdated procedures. They’d also run dozens of
staff information sessions and tested extensively to iron out
all the wrinkles before the go-live date.
There had been staff training, designed to get people
skilled-up with SAP as quickly as possible.
And there was the SAP helpdesk, ready to provide
support.
Naturally, Roger was smart enough to anticipate a few
teething problems along the way. There would be a process
of adjustment while staff became fully proficient with SAP’s
systemsandthepeculiaritiesofthenewbestpracticeprocesses.
But he’d been assured by experienced SAP consultants
that — with adequate training — users would gradually
adjust and those issues would disappear.
And true to expectation, there had been some teething
troubles. But overall, things had begun reasonably well.
Unfortunately, since that early ‘honeymoon’ period, as
Roger had begun to think of it, the situation had deteriorated
— completely contrary to expectations and predictions.
Instead of getting better, things seemed to be getting
progressively worse.
And, as he pulled shut the door of his office to embark
on his weekly round of departmental meetings, Roger had
little confidence that the situation had improved over the last
week.
THE COMPANY — FRIDAY, 9.30AM
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
“Morning Helen,” Roger said as he breezed into accounts
payable with self-assurance he didn’t really feel.
“Roger,” Helen greeted him coolly. “Take a seat.”
“Ah.” Roger knew what that meant. “More issues?”
Helen shrugged noncommittally. “The same ones, really.”
She handed over a list.
“Look at the top item. We have more than half-a-dozen
outstanding invoices we can’t automatically process —
suppliers we cannot pay — because someone in another
department failed to enter a purchase order correctly.”
Roger gazed at the piece of paper glumly.
“So my staff have to run around chasing details and...
well... end up fixing someone else’s mess. Because those
vendors probably won’t send us
any additional inventory until
the previous bill gets paid.”
“Are we running low on
inventory as a result?”
“No, it doesn’t ever get to
that point. We’ve got it under
control.
But it’s additional work that we simply shouldn’t have to do
in the first place. Ties up my staff for ages and prevents us
from doing other stuff. Inefficient, you know?”
THE COMPANY — FRIDAY, 10.15AM
CFO’S OFFICE
“You know my staff are doing their best,” Roger told
Daniel Traore, the company CFO.
M
Since that early ‘honeymoon’ period, as Roger had
begun to think of it, the situation had deteriorated —
completely contrary to expectations and predictions.

5. 4
“I’m well aware of just how hard you’re working to get
SAP working seamlessly across the organisation,” Daniel
replied. “But it’s the results that count.”
“And most weeks it seems that my staff can’t deliver a
correct payroll. They seem to spend as much time responding
to people’s complaints and correcting pay cheques as
delivering them in the first place.”
“If people would fill in everything properly, instead of
taking short cuts, there would be no issue.” Roger pointed
out.
“You won’t have me disagreeing with that, Roger. It’s a
pity that many people find the system cumbersome. Worse,
they assume we have all the information at our fingertips
— overtime rates and such — and can easily work it out
ourselves. So they skip stuff.”
He shrugged.
“Then they have the nerve to get angry at us!”
THE COMPANY — FRIDAY, 11.00AM
SAP HELPDESK
“Frankly, if half the help desk didn’t walk out over the
next three to six months, I’d be amazed,” Hillary the SAP
Helpdesk supervisor told Roger.
“I know it’s not been easy for you these last few weeks,
but do you really think it will be that bad?” Roger asked.
Hillary shrugged. “It’ll be pretty bad. We’re just too
overloaded with enquiries. They come in faster than we can
resolve them.”
Not only do a good proportion of outside staff dislike the
system — I know that’s not news to you — helpdesk staff are
beginning to find it frustrating it as well.”
“But they’re used to SAP,” Roger protested. “They know
the systems.”
“They did in the beginning,” agreed Hillary. “But that
was when SAP streamlined and
automated dozens of different procedures
across the company. Since then, our
streamlining has begun to break down.
Have you noticed that some processes
are starting to resemble the inefficient
procedures we used before — just in a
SAP environment?”
“It’s something that’s been weighing on my mind,” Roger
confessed. “But we need to keep the users happy.”
“Well, for my staff, the change has been demoralising,”
Hillary said. “The changes increase confusion, it takes
us time to catch up and it really impacts on our response
times. All up, it’s hammering team morale. Sick leave use is
increasing. You know what that means.”
Roger sighed. “Yeah. Not the flu, that’s for certain.”
THE COMPANY — FRIDAY, 3.50PM
EXECUTIVE BOARDROOM
Roger put his head in his hands and took a deep breath.
Today’s meetings had shown him that the SAP deployment
was as challenging as ever.
All the way from the procurement department in the
morning to the final meeting with HR management just an
hour earlier, he’d listened to one story of frustration after
another.
SAP was a $20 million program that was supposed to
deliver best practice throughout the organisation. The result
would be increased productivity and cost savings.
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N
“I’m well aware of just how hard you’re working
to get SAP working seamlessly across the
organisation. But it’s the results that count.”

6. 5
Instead, it was falling short of its potential. And Roger had
no idea what to do about it.
How on earth was he going to explain himself to the board
meeting?
Council of war
THE COMPANY — MONDAY, 10.00AM
IT CONFERENCE ROOM
here wasn’t a seat spare in the IT department
conference room — Roger had called along to the
Steering Committee meeting anyone he felt might be
remotely able to help.
There was Gary from production and his counterpart Vicki
from warehousing, despatch and inventory.There was Hillary
from accounts payable and her boss Daniel, the CFO. At one
end of the table sat Roger’s SAP engineers, Joe, Valerie and
Tim, as well as Hillary, the SAP helpdesk supervisor. Next to
them sat Rhonda, the company’s senior sales manager.
Roger had even called in Susie, the head of human
resources.
The steering committee had become a
fullblown council of war.
“As you know,” Roger said. “Our SAP
deployment is giving us more issues than it
should. A lot of mistakes are happening, and our
people aren’t happy with the system. Even if it’s
nothing critical, it creates a lot of work for us all,
affecting productivity and increasing costs.”
He leaned forward. “The board tells me we have three
months to fix the situation and improve morale. So we
really need to figure out why things aren’t working.”
“It’s the stubbornness of the users, obviously,” pointed
out Joe, the more senior of the three SAP engineers. “If they
followed procedures like they’re supposed to, we wouldn’t
have any issues.”
His fellow engineers nodded their agreement.
His colleague Tim added: “Productivity would increase
immensely if more people used SAP directly instead
of double entering after doing the initial work in spreadsheets.
It might even reduce operator errors ... you know, those ones
that result in an order ending up in the wrong place!”
“Tim, I know I don’t have time to be looking over the
shoulder of my staff constantly just to make sure they’re
following SAP processes properly,” said Gary. “I bet the
other section managers don’t either.”
“It’s not just that, many staff simply don’t seem inclined
to learn,” Tim muttered.
Susie, the HR manager, spoke up. “People don’t like
change. You can’t force them. They’re very comfortable with
their old ways — and as soon as things start going wrong
they revert. It’s true: old habits do die hard.”
“Many people find using SAP unwieldy,” Vicki added.
“It’s something I hear all the time. Surely it’s easier to
tolerate their shortcuts and idiosyncrasies and adjust SAP
around them. It’s logical — if you can make SAP mimic
what they’ve always done, they’re less likely to resent the
system and more likely to follow it. And then errors should
become a thing of the past.”
“We’re programmers, not magicians,” Joe pointed out.
”Those changes are not necessarily easy to do!”
“Moreover,” Hillary said. “If we continue changing the
specifications and procedures, half my helpdesk staff will
probably quit. Every time we change processes, it creates
confusion and demoralises my staff. That’s not all: it also
compromises our best-practice automation. We’re gradually
losing the benefits process streamlining delivers —
streamlining that is crucial to delivering maximum ROI.”
“It might seem odd,” Roger mused. “But Hillary is right.
Things have become more difficult since our continual
improvement team began adjusting our processes.”
“We’re building better processes,” Tim pointed out.
T
“We need to do more than simply improve
our processes. Without user compliance the
best processes in the world are useless.”

7. 6
“That’s the point of continual improvement.”
“Right,” agreed Roger. “But we need to do more than
simply improve our processes. Without user compliance the
best processes in the world are useless.”
“I don’t think anyone would disagree that we should cease
encouraging user compliance.” Gary said.
“Absolutely,”Rogersaid.“Yet,ononehandwe’readapting
our processes to the users to help achieve compliance. And
on the other, we’re trying to convince users to use the system
properly and follow processes correctly.
“We’re trying to achieve two opposite goals at once.
I suspect that the conflict between these two strategies is
undermining the integrity of our best-practice processes and
creating our user — and productivity — issues.”
The core conflict
he council of war has uncovered the conflict that’s the
cause of most SAP deployment problems.
Roger realises that every week he’s caught between
the need to encourage users to be compliant with the
processes and the system, and the need to improve the
processes and system and make them more ‘user-friendly’.
In this situation, SAP project managers — just like Roger
— are faced with just three options:
1) Adapting the users to the system (enforcing user
compliance).
2) Apapting the system to the users (re-working processes
to make them more ‘user-friendly’).
3) Oscillate between the above two options.
Often SAP managers pragmatically choose the third way,
hoping that it will be the least painful.
On the face of it, this seems an entirely sensible
option!
The drawback is that this pragmatism inevitably
compromises the best-practice processes of the system —
best practice which is critical to delivering productivity and
cost-control improvements.
This dilemma is represented below (see Figure 1).
Along the top, you should read the diagram as follows:
In order to build a better business, companies must get
users compliant with business processes. And in order to
get users compliant with business processes, companies
need to adapt the processes and the system to the users.
Why is this? Painful experience tells us that users resist
change!
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N
T
SAP deployment requires user compliance
with new processes. But user resistance
often leads to a sub-optimal compromise that
damages best practice.
Figure 1 - The Core Conflict

8. 7
However, at the same time (along the bottom):
In order to build a better business, companies must
improve their business processes. And, in order to improve
those processes, those companies have to adapt the users to
the processes and the system.
This is because if user behaviour doesn’t change, SAP’s
best-practice processes are never really implemented.
Thus the system never changes and the processes that are
fundamental to improving the productivity and reducing
costs never alter.
This diagram exposes the conflict that exists.
That is: we can’t adapt the system and the users
simultaneously without compromising our carefully
constructed best practice — the best practice that is
necessary to deliver those highly desirable productivity
improvements!
The conflict illustrated by this diagram can only be
resolved by successfully challenging one of the underlying
assumptions identified above.
But which one?
It’s worth examining which assumption’s validity can be
challenged.
Can we improve the process without adapting users to
the new processes and systems? No, as pointed out earlier,
without user acceptance, the system never changes.
Likewise, is it possible to adapt the users and the system
simultaneously? This is the approach that many SAP
managers try to take when user resentment begins to spike
during a deployment.
The answer is that we can, but not without damaging the
integrity of the best practice processes that we implemented
— which is leading to a multitude of problems and a failure
on the part of SAP to deliver the required ROI.
Debunking the myth
his process of elimination leaves just one assumption
to explore.
“Until now, we’ve assumed that user resistance
to change is instinctual,” Roger continued. “We’ve
presumed it’s ingrained and will be people’s natural reaction
when we ask them to do something differently.”
“At first glance, there seems to be no shortage of evidence
to support this. Fundamentally, this is why we’ve been ...
back-pedalling, as it were. If our users flatly reject the
technological change we press on them, surely we have no
choice but to backtrack and adapt those processes until we
obtain their compliance.”
“But what if this assumption was untrue?” he asked
everyone.
“How can you say that?” Gary
demanded. “It’s pretty obvious that
people aren’t happy with SAP and don’t
want to use the new processes.”
“Well, think about this: do you
remember how a couple of weeks ago
you were telling me how you loved
internet banking?” Roger asked.
“Sure. Finally gave it a go and I’m completely won over
by how fast and convenient it is. But what—”
Roger didn’t let him finish. “You told me you were
delighted to never have to visit a branch or a post office to
pay bills anymore, and loved being able to easily manage all
your accounts from home. Now do you think that sounds like
you’re resisting change out of fear?”
“No...” Gary said slowly, obviously thinking the concept
through.
Roger wasn’t finished through. “Daniel’s team uses
internet banking extensively where previously they were
writing dozens of cheques and making daily visits to the
bank.”
Daniel nodded agreement. “Everyone uses e-mail
these days as well. Post is less prevalent; faxes are almost
obsolete. We have next to no internal mail anymore
T
If users don’t change their behaviour, the best-
practice processes we develop are never really
implemented. Thus the system never changes...

9. 8
because of e-mail — it’s far easier to send an e-mail than
a physical memo.”
”I’m sure we could find more examples,” Roger said.
“But I think it proves people are not necessarily opposed to
change. They couldn’t be — without change we’d still all be
living in caves. Progress would never happen.”
Resolving the conflict
s indicated earlier, the core conflict can only be
resolved by successfully challenging one of the
assumptions that underlies the conflict.
Having eliminated all other possibilities, Roger
has realised the assumption that must be challenged is
the one that users resist change (see Figure 2). Instead, he
proposes there are circumstances where users are willing to
accept change.
The benefit is that Roger will no longer need to adapt the
system to the users, eliminating the compromise situation
that was subverting his SAP deployment.
The question is: under what circumstances do people
accept change?
Why people can change
think I’m starting to understand what you mean,” Gary
said to Roger. “What’s more, I think I understand why
people accept change — it all began to click for me when
you said ‘benefit’.”
“Yes,” said Roger. “If you consider it, the answer is
obvious: people embrace change when it is in their best
interest to do so.”
“When they see a benefit for themselves?” asked Susie.
“Precisely.” said Roger. “There’s nothing better for
generating enthusiasm and motivation than a healthy dose
of self-interest.”
“Perhaps our users don’t really know that SAP really is
beneficial to them?” Daniel pondered.
“But we’ve spent thousands of dollars on training,” Vicki
pointed out.
“From some of the feedback we get at the helpdesk, I
get the sense that users sometimes end up blindly pushing
buttons and entering numbers,” Hillary said. “If they lack
a proper context for their work, they’ll never see any
benefit for themselves. All they’re embracing is a bunch of
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N
Traditionally it is assumed that users
will always resist change. Thus system
compromise is required. Acknowledging
that users accept change eliminates the
compromise that subverts best practice.
Figure 2 - Resolving
The Core Conflict
A
I“

10. 9
procedures and regulations — not ideal motivators.
“It’s what the SAP consultants recommend, though,”
Roger pointed out.
“But it’s not good when people only know to do something
because they’ve been told to, not why,” said Susie. “Maybe
the consultants have never considered the problem this way
before.”
Roger nodded. “It sounds like this could be the case. And,
as a result, we seem to be accidentally treating our users like
robots — telling them what to do, but failing to show them
how it helps make their workday easier.”
Tim, the more junior of the SAP engineers interrupted.
“You know, it doesn’t stop there. Users who don’t see the
wider process have less understanding of how their data is
crucial to system integrity. Every deviation, error or omission
has a consequence, but they might only vaguely realise
that. Sometimes the error rebounds on
them — inaccurate pay, perhaps —
sometimes it doesn’t. But the key is
thattheyneverconnecttheirbehaviour
with the hassles they experience —
they simply blame SAP!”
“Or the person in the other department,” said Hillary. “It’s
something we cop all the time.”
“Well, that’s why we’re here today, isn’t it?” Roger said.
“And, if we can come up with a way to connect the problems
our users experience with their behaviours, then we might
have a solution.”
The infliction approach
he unfortunate reality is that the SAP change
managementprocessofmanycompaniesinadvertently
leaves staff under-prepared for change.
At first glance, this may seem counter-intuitive.
Because this is not to say that users don’t get plenty of
notice about what’s happening.
Nor is it to say that management fails to invest in
training or is ignorant how critical good training is to
deployment success. The fact is that management often
spends millions of dollars and hires SAP trainers to help
make the adjustment process as smooth as possible for all
staff.
However, for all their experience, these trainers are
often unaware of the importance of context in successfully
embedding change within an organisation.
The result is that training is mostly concentrated on
procedural issues — navigating screens and completing
forms.
The focus is on making people push the right buttons.
We call this method of introducing users to SAP the
Infliction Approach.
The consequence of this approach is that many users never
gain a full understanding of how their work fits into the new
processes of the system.
And without that holistic understanding, they never
perceive any personal benefit from following SAP
procedures.
T
With the infliction Approach, over time, people
become alienated from the system and resistance
to SAP becomes embedded within the organisation.

11. 10
As we’ve seen, this allows a disconnect to develop.
People fail to associate their own behaviour (failing to
complete forms) with the undesirable effects — missing or
misdelivered orders, late or inaccurate pay, and so on — that
subsequently propagate through the company.
Often minor, but always irritating, these issues
slowly accumulate and frustrate users. In the absence of
understanding how their behavioural deviations are causing
these problems, they blame SAP.
Over time, people become alienated from the system
and resistance to SAP becomes embedded within the
organisation. Most often, this manifests in people reverting
to previous systems to do their work, a behaviour that affects
the achievement of SAP deployment targets.
Of course, it’s important to note that the Infliction
Approach is not an explicit methodology that trainers (and, by
extension, management) employ to handle SAP deployment
— it’s more that it’s the default way they deal with users
in the absence of a complete understanding of how people
process and cope with change.
The Collaborative Approach
he Collaborative Approach offers a much more
effective alternative to the Infliction Approach.
As we’ve seen, the Infliction Approach neglects the
critical importance of ensuring users have a reason to
follow SAP procedures (apart from ‘because the
procedure manual says so’) and that they have a solid
understanding of how their work fits into the overall process.
On the other hand, the Collaborative Approach
acknowledges it’s essential that users have a holistic
understanding of how their work fits into the wider system.
Only in this way will they perceive a (personal) benefit in
following procedures.
Specifically, the Collaborative Approach provides a
process that examines users’ symptoms and connects them
with their behaviours. It then shows how
behavioural change will eliminate those
symptoms, benefiting both users and the
company.
The Collaborative Approach (see
Figure 3) argues that people change
willingly when the five common obstacles
to change are eliminated, and — in its simplest form —
consists of the following five step process:
1. Users don’t believe there’s a problem
2. Users don’t believe they are part of the problem
3. Users doubt the proposed solution will work
4. Users don’t agree with the proposed behaviour
5. Users associate change with risk
At the root of these obstacles is one simple problem
Organisations are complex and users struggle to appreciate
the connections between their behaviour and the various
negative effects this behaviour causes.
This is particularly the case when these negative effects
occur in a different place (another department) or at another
time; which is, more often than not, the case.
The Collaborative Approach prescribes a method to
eliminate each of these obstacles.
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N
T
Specifically, the Collaborative Approach provides
a process that examines users’ symptoms and
connects them with their behaviours.

12. 11
There are five common
obstacles to users accepting
change. These obstacles
can be overcome, resulting
in users embracing change
because it is in their benefit.
How to overcome the five obstacles to change
Figure 3 - The Collaborative Approach

13. 12
OBSTACLE ONE:
USERS DON’T BELIEVE
THERE’S A PROBLEM
The problem here is that users perceive the proposed
changes to be unnecessary. They acknowledge that they have
issues that they must deal with, but they do not recognise
that these issues are actually symptoms of a core problem.
Accordingly, they are more likely to view the proposed
change as an additional issue that must be added to their list.
METHOD: Connect users’ symptoms with the core
problem.
In order to ensure that users understand that there is, in
fact, a problem, it’s necessary to map the cause-and-effect
connections between users’ symptoms (negative effects) and
the root cause of these symptoms.
This should be done in a workshop
environment. Users should write their issues
on post-it notes and these post-it notes should
be assembled into what’s called a Current
Reality Tree. Users will discover that the
cause-and-effect chains that commence with
their issues converge on one core problem.
It is ideal if users from a number of departments are
present. That way, users can see that there is no inherent
conflict between departments.
OUTCOME: Users understand the root cause of their
current symptoms.
OBSTACLE TWO:
USERS DON’T BELIEVE THEY
ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM
It’s one thing for users to understand that there’s a problem.
It’s another for them to acknowledge that their behaviour is
actually contributing to this problem.
METHOD: Secure users’ acceptance that current
behaviour reinforces the core problem.
Once users have an understanding of the current reality,
it’s necessary to highlight and discuss each of the behaviours
that are anchoring the reality in its current form.
As a result, users will develop an understanding that:
1. The current reality is primarily a result of behaviours
(not of the environment)
2. The reality can only change if behaviours change
OUTCOME: Users appreciate the requirement for
behavioural change.
OBSTACLE THREE:
USERS DOUBT THE PROPOSED
SOLUTION WILL WORK
In practice, users find it just as hard to understand the
connection between the proposed solution and its positive
effects as they did the connection between the negative
effects and their root cause.
METHOD: Demonstrate that the proposed solution
eliminates the symptoms (without introducing new ones).
This can be accomplished by mapping the effects of the
proposed solution onto the Current Reality Tree that users
have produced and ensuring that all of the users’ issues
(symptoms) are eliminated.
If it is discovered that the proposed solution generates new
negative effects, the users should be encouraged to propose
amendments to the solution to eliminate these.
OUTCOME: Users accept the proposed solution.
OBSTACLE FOUR:
USERS DON’T AGREE WITH
THE PROPOSED BEHAVIOUR
Again, there is a danger that users will accept the solution
on only an academic level. It’s only too easy for them to
assume the solution will work fine without behavioural
change on their behalf.
METHOD: Secure users’ acceptance that proposed
behaviour will eliminate current symptoms.
As with obstacle two, it is critical that users identify and
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N
Once the system itself starts to provide users
with this positive reinforcement, users will lose
interest in reverting to their old behaviours.

14. 13
discuss the new behaviours that are required in order for the
solution to work.
They must understand the connection between the new
behaviours that the solution requires and the elimination of
their current symptoms.
OUTCOME: Users accept that the proposed behaviour is
in their own best interests.
OBSTACLE FIVE:
USERS ASSOCIATE
CHANGE WITH RISK
It is always possible that users will fear change, even then
they understand and believe in the requirement for it.
This is particularly the case where major change is
required.
METHOD: Coach users until they are capable.
Just as the skydiving instructor must be on-hand to give
even the most willing first-time jumper a gentle push, it is
critical that users are coached until they become capable.
It’s the job of the coach to ensure that old behaviours are
eliminated and to provide positive reinforcement when the
new behaviours emerge.
Once the system itself starts to provide users with this
positive reinforcement, users will lose interest in reverting to
their old behaviours.
OUTCOME: Users understand that not changing is riskier
than changing.
This method connects users symptoms with their
behaviour, and reveals how change their behaviour will
eliminate their symptoms — benefiting themselves and the
company simultaneously.
This method is depicted in Figure 3.
Over time, through workshops, classes and coaching,
staff align their interests with those of the company. They
begin to see that complete transition to SAP helps them
also — whether it’s that work becomes less tedious, that
they get paid faster, or that they spend less time chasing and
correcting trivial data errors that can consequently cause
major problems throughout the organisation.
Success
THE COMPANY — FRIDAY, 4.00PM
EXECUTIVE BOARDROOM
oger paused just outside the door to the boardroom.
Inside, everyone was awaiting his three-month report.
Since that fateful day three months ago, time had
flownpast.Andthediscoveriesofthedepartmentheads
had provided renewed focus for both his IT team and the
heads of department driving the SAP deployment.
Together, they’d developed a series of workshops designed
to connect users’ bad habits with the issues they were
experiencing. They were shown how the flow-on effect of
many of the idiosyncratic personal systems they used could
be late orders, missed deliveries and even late or incorrect
pay.
They’d supplemented this with intensive training that
showed staff how to use SAP properly — including a
particular focus on elements that improved the usability of
SAP.
Roger felt the results of this initiative would please the
board.
Signs were that significantly fewer people now used
a legacy system to supplement SAP. Calls to the SAP
R

15. 14
helpdesk were much reduced. And a lot of the niggling
problems that accounts, sales and production had been
experiencing had finally begun to abate.
All up, Roger felt the organisation was now much closer
to achieving the initial aims of the SAP deployment.
In some areas, productivity still wasn’t hitting the levels
predicted by the consultants, but Roger was confident the
company would get there.
Best of all, Roger no longer dreaded Fridays. With a smile,
he opened the boardroom door and stepped through.
The next step
e hope that this paper has given you a clearer
understanding of the undesirable consequences
of the infliction approach to SAP deployment
management, and how employing the
collaborative approach can help you reap the full benefits
SAP offers organisations.
If you’d like to hear more about how this approach can be
used in practice, simply e-mail us at sales@media-dimension.
com or call us on 0405 236 360.
M E D I A D I M E N S I O N
W

16. MEDIADIMENSION
PO Box 444, Neutral Bay Junction, NSW 2089
Phone: 0405 236 360 email: sales@media-dimension.com website: www.media-dimension.com