Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!pacbell.com!decwrl!infopiz!athertn!hemlock!mcgregor From: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Ultra composable (reusable) "objects" Message-ID: <27243@athertn.Atherton.COM> Date: 17 Jul 90 22:28:58 GMT References: <7881@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <39400113@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <112789@linus.mitre.org> <112896@linus.mitre.org> <5361@stpstn.UUCP> Sender: news@athertn.Atherton.COM Reply-To: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) Organization: Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 57 In article <7881@fy.sei.cmu.edu>, bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: > How does the average software organization introduce or import new > technology? > ... > 4. PEOPLE are the active element in software. Technology is worthless > without people using it, especially where technology is used to > enhance the creative work of people. New technology should be viewed > in terms of how it effects the individual practitioner not the inherent > power in the technology. Useability, technology maturity, education, > support, etc., become the first considerations, not the last. I have found that whenever new technologies are to be introduced, it is critical to identify the "change agents". Change Agents must be the first to find out about the new technologies. These people have a high tolerance for things changing out from under them. They take high pride in their ability to "tame" new technology. Most other people can't deal with so much shifting technology, in their eyes such new technology discover interferes with their personal productivity because they see themselves focussing on the new technology and not the task. In order to avoid this lack of personal productivity people don't adopt the new technologies quickly. Instead, they wait until they notice that their nearby change agent is using the technology. Then they will adopt it, thinking that if they have any problems that they will talk with their local change agent (key point--they consult a local person, not read the manual!). Failure to train the change agents first causes two problems. First, people will come to them and they won't be able to help, and that will slow down adoption. Second, in many cases they will resist the new technology because they enjoy the guru role and that role has been usurped by others. They will bad mouth the product and eventually everyone will decide that the new technology was misguided because the change agent's judgement slowly ebbs into all the people who would consult them. Real change agents are sometimes actually considered troublesome because they have so much profound "uncontrolled" effects on the people around them they introduce many technologies that management didn't plan as well. Unfortunately, you cannot create a change agent. You can't appoint someone the role. Some people play the role naturally in any organization and you have to find them out. When you attempt to introduce change through an appointed change agent team, rather than the existing change agent team, you exacerbate the problem of resistance mentioned above. You are undercutting someone's personal source of self-worth, and they fight you. Many manager don't like this. It means that instead of "simple" and "logical" structures for introduction of new technology they must deal with irrational ad hoc ones based on personalities. There is less apparent control in dealing with the existing change agents. However, the control of appointees is only apparent since the hard to detect and correct undermining behavior is usually not correctly forecasted and prepared for. In the end, you play by the real change agents rules whether you planned to or not Scott McGregor mcgregor@atherton.com