> I have had my fair share backlash when trying to introduce replacement and complimentary tools. To replace excel, you not only need to advocate for it's usefulness and you need to be also be liable to the complaints from excel users. If anything goes wrong no how minor with the new tool, you are the one who introduced all these mess.
That is a universal issue of IT management: Any change implemented in IT systems (or anything else) will get that kind of resistance - bigger changes cause more resistance. If you change their primary tool, which they use all day and on which their jobs depend, expect a lot of resistance. The solutions:
1) Get management buy-in. They set the ceiling for acceptance - very few underlings will have more interest or make more effort than their management; if the manager dislikes it, doesn't use it, is disinterested, etc., then most others will do the same. Also, management is your support - when someone objects, they are not just objecting to you, they are objecting to their manager.
2) Get user buy-in. This is perfectly reasonable, if you think about it: Their tools, they use the tool all day, their jobs, probably they should have the biggest say. It means obtaining and utilizing their input from the start on what the tool should and should not do, etc. It may not be what you planned or expect; it may shatter your dreams; that's good - your fantasy was not aligned with reality. They provide the user end (e.g., 'don't change the keyboard UI that is in all our muscle memory and in all our documentation, and automated in macros'; 'of course you are migrating our macros, on which we depend, right?!'), you provide the technical end (e.g., 'we need a database with a spreadsheet UI and not a file-based spreadsheet').
3) Use all your development skills: test, mvp, deploy, iterate, etc.
4) Use some social intelligence: Deliver to the most interested, capable users first. Others will see them being uber-productive and want one too. Provide everyone with incredible, highly responsive support. Etc.
That is a universal issue of IT management: Any change implemented in IT systems (or anything else) will get that kind of resistance - bigger changes cause more resistance. If you change their primary tool, which they use all day and on which their jobs depend, expect a lot of resistance. The solutions:
1) Get management buy-in. They set the ceiling for acceptance - very few underlings will have more interest or make more effort than their management; if the manager dislikes it, doesn't use it, is disinterested, etc., then most others will do the same. Also, management is your support - when someone objects, they are not just objecting to you, they are objecting to their manager.
2) Get user buy-in. This is perfectly reasonable, if you think about it: Their tools, they use the tool all day, their jobs, probably they should have the biggest say. It means obtaining and utilizing their input from the start on what the tool should and should not do, etc. It may not be what you planned or expect; it may shatter your dreams; that's good - your fantasy was not aligned with reality. They provide the user end (e.g., 'don't change the keyboard UI that is in all our muscle memory and in all our documentation, and automated in macros'; 'of course you are migrating our macros, on which we depend, right?!'), you provide the technical end (e.g., 'we need a database with a spreadsheet UI and not a file-based spreadsheet').
3) Use all your development skills: test, mvp, deploy, iterate, etc.
4) Use some social intelligence: Deliver to the most interested, capable users first. Others will see them being uber-productive and want one too. Provide everyone with incredible, highly responsive support. Etc.