As part of our ongoing Adoption Series, over the past few articles, we have presented a case study on the specific experiences of two rival companies and their implementations of similar supply management technology suites. Specifically, we looked at the impact that the existing corporate culture had on the implementation and overall results in the following:

• Article introducing Company 1 which was described as large, successful, and disciplined.
• Article introducing Company 2 which was described as a company that began a very deliberate campaign to change its culture and move away from one where leadership  and communication drove behavior to an environment that focused on ‘influencing’ staff behavior.
• Summary article with comparison matrix and results.

Now some final thoughts on the case study, corporate culture, and its impact on technology adoption.

• First, there are many factors, beyond corporate culture, that impact the results of an implementation of a supply management technology – strategy, project team, mandate, orientation of organization, level of engagement, technology partner, supply management leadership, etc. – and we will continue to look at many of these as part of this series.
• This case study really did provide a unique instance where the corporate cultures of two very similar companies were dramatically different
• For both companies, the corporate cultures cascaded down to the project level – that is not always the case; Whether you think it was effective in the case of Company #2, or not, this team was very disciplined in following both the project management style that was approved by the executives and the ‘influencing’ style to roll-out the solution and drive adoption
• In many enterprises, the “culture” of deployment has absolutely nothing to do with the company or the department – many times the culture is modeled on the personality and orientation of the project manager (either at the client or from the solution provider) or the project sponsor (i.e. department head)
• Corporate cultures develop (or are developed) for specific reasons, usually good ones. So, despite Company #2’s seemingly disappointing results, they must be viewed in a larger context – Company 2 believed very strongly in an approach that sought to influence usage instead of mandating it.
• As part of the corporate culture, Company #2 choose a project leader that had a great tenure at the company, had worked in several different groups, and was thought to be very well-connected with the different user groups – his asset was an ability to influence, unfortunately his project leadership/management skills were a huge liability.
• As part of the corporate culture at Company #1, the project leadership role was highly desired and competition to get it was steep.  The “winner” was a project leader with tremendous experience in technology implementations. This leader built a strong team of lieutenants that were very strong process people.
• As part of the corporate culture, Company #2 relied heavily on consultants and believed that you could pit different companies against each other on a project as a way to drive them to higher performance. That was not the result on this project. The project had several different consulting companies directly involved in the implementation plan without a division of labor or separation of duties. This resulted in team structure that had at least two consultants and sometimes three staffed in every functional position where one would have sufficed.

The conclusion I draw is that, while corporate culture may not always be a very significant factor in technology adoption results, it should not be discounted. As we’ve seen in this specific case study, corporate culture played a huge role in both projects since it largely determined how the project teams would be staffed and how the teams would engage with the targeted end users.

Comments?

Tagged in: Adoption, Case Study, Strategy, Technology