What are the best metrics for tracking the adoption of new processes and systems?

Key metrics for tracking the adoption of new processes and systems include user engagement, completion rates, and feedback. Taking the time to monitor how often users interact with the system/process to track the percentage of tasks completed successfully, and gather user feedback to identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, it’s necessary to analyze these metrics to assess the overall effectiveness of the new processes and systems, making data-driven adjustments as needed to enhance adoption and user satisfaction.

Two essential paths to take. 1) Refer to the business case or BRD - find ways to prove benefit realisation on all scope items. This satisfies your Steerco and KPI’s. 2) Add the change aspect. System implementation in not change success. Can you prove increased productivity, fewer mistakes, better reporting, capability uplift. You can normally use existing data and excel to crunch the numbers - or a well planned survey.

In relation to process and system change, the types of metrics you might use are: - How quickly people come up the adoption curve - How many people are utilising the change based on what was expected - How well people have moved from knowledge to ability This can be done through digital adoption tools like WalkMe, system use stats, surveys, quizzes and observations. Also, an idea to check-in on change recipients’ overall performance and wellbeing, seeing as change is noted as a common psychosocial hazard. Ideally, some of these measures could be done side by side with some form of hyper care initially, as adoption relies on great change management, post implementation support and leaders taking on the support post program roll off.

Some of the metrics that have helped me in large programs are: 1. OKRs - what is the target and key measures 2. Capacity planning and utilization 3. Speed to market and value 4. Team's velocity 5. Say-Do benefits: provides information on what was committed vs delivered/being worked on. 6. Customer satisfaction survey and feedback. 7. Financials: forecast spend vs Actuals, cost vs benefit.

Once, when leading the implementation of a new system, I encountered persistent resistance from the team. Instead of traditional metrics, I chose to measure adoption rates through narratives. I encouraged team members to share their experiences and challenges regarding the new system. This unveiled hidden concerns and enabled targeted action to overcome invisible barriers. Sometimes, non-traditional metrics based on stories and emotions can be more valuable than cold numbers, illuminating crucial aspects of change. After all, empathy is a metric that cannot be quantified but can transform the adoption of new processes and systems.

In my opinion, metrics to measure change can vary widely depending on the context and the specific objectives of the change. For example, it could be efficiency metric measuring the speed and resources used for processes before and after the change. Another type could be based on outcome effectiveness. For example, customer satisfaction scores, error rates, or product defect rates. To measure growth impact, utilise metrics like market share, revenue growth rate, or customer acquisition rate. And to assess people impact, you can use engagement scores, or uptake of new practices. The selection of metric should be aligned with the strategic goals of the change management initiative.

Using metrics effectively in large change programs is essential for tracking progress, assessing impact, and ensuring the success of the initiative. Here's how to do it: 1. Set Clear Goals: Begin with clear objectives for your change program. 2. Pick Relevant Metrics: Choose metrics that directly measure progress toward your goals. 3. Regularly Monitor and Analyze: Continuously track, analyze, and adjust based on data insights. 4. Open Communication: Share metrics and progress with stakeholders for alignment and accountability. Be ready to educate them on how to read and understand the data being reviewed. Agree on a format and communicate.

Metrics should be used in an empowering way, to inform, guide, and enhance executive level decision making, while being actionable on the contributor levels of the organization. Accountability should not focus on the numbers, but on the plan and execution of initiatives statistically proven to improve numbers. Leadership styles that coach, mentor, and facilitate important discussions rather than focus on punitive enforcement of improvements in the metric system are likely to create a culture of buy-in and collaboration. Conversely, when punitive implications apply to metric declines, the fostered culture is one that is focused on hiding or deceiving leadership, rather than focusing on improving the issue with the product or service itself.

Whilst many change metrics focus on adoption, proficiency, productivity, don't forget that change is a human-centred function. The change role is not simply an extension of, or the training and comms side of project management. I’d therefore invite you to consider measuring how supported people felt during the change, how prepared they feel to sustain and improve the change (this includes measuring how supported leaders / product owners feel, as they are usually taking on the ownership of the result of change). You can do this through a retro. Similarly, how are we checking in on wellbeing and ensuring there are no residual psychosocial hazards? Context applies, though it's always best to assess and ensure bias doesn't take over.

While metrics surely are necessary measurement tools to gauge progress and success; first and foremost, a strong foundation for managing organizational change lies in a solid strategy. Some of the best change management strategies include; good planning, honest transparency, two-way communication, and employee participation. The sleeper in this list is participation. Including team leaders at all levels helps their teams feel like they’re contributing to the success of the process rather than feeling forced into change.