Why ‘Adoption’ Isn’t Enough: Greg Head on the Real Challenge of System Implementation

In a recent LinkedIn post, Greg Head explores a critical but often overlooked aspect of system implementation: true learning versus mere adoption. He uses a real-world example from a distribution business to illustrate how high login rates can mask a profound failure in system effectiveness.

“I have never seen anyone refuse to use a new system that they helped choose.”

Greg Head argues that this common scenario, where users log into a system but fail to engage with it meaningfully, is a deceptive metric. In the case he describes, a distribution business with approximately $140 million in revenue implemented a demand forecasting model. While the initial adoption metrics looked promising, with 94% of planners logging in weekly, the results were starkly disappointing.

The Illusion of Adoption

Fourteen months after the model’s implementation, forecast accuracy had not improved. Greg Head highlights that the model remained flawed in the same six ways it had been from the start. The crucial issue, as he points out, was the lack of feedback or correction from the users.

As Greg Head notes, a field designed for logging override reasons sat largely blank. This absence of data indicated that users weren’t actively engaging with the system to improve its performance. Instead, they were passively accepting its inaccuracies.

“Nobody had told it. There was a field for logging an override reason. It sat blank in most records.”

When Users ‘Let It Be Wrong’

Greg Head shares an observation from an operations manager that perfectly encapsulates the problem: “Nobody is fighting it. They are just letting it be wrong.” This sentiment reveals a deeper issue than a simple lack of technical skill.

Understanding User Behavior

According to Greg Head, the planners understood the nuances that the model missed. They were aware of specific exceptions, such as seasonal accounts, customers ordering in bulk before audits, and particular SKUs affected by weather. Crucially, they also understood the value of an accurate forecasting model to their own department.

However, instead of teaching the system these exceptions, the planners chose to simply use the flawed model and move on. Greg Head posits that this behavior stems from a misunderstanding of what true system engagement entails.

“The planners knew the exceptions. Seasonal accounts. The customer who orders in bulk ahead of an audit. Two SKUs that move on weather. They also knew what a working forecast model does to a planning department. So they used it. They logged in. They did not teach it.”

Adoption vs. Learning

Greg Head draws a clear distinction between adoption and learning. He argues that adoption is merely a login, a superficial engagement. Learning, on the other hand, requires a deeper level of interaction and feedback that many systems and their dashboards fail to track or encourage.

In his view, the planners’ actions weren’t a refusal to use the system, but rather a passive acceptance of its limitations because the effort to teach it seemed less beneficial than simply working around its flaws. The system, therefore, remained fundamentally incorrect.

“Adoption is a login. Learning is a different number and most dashboards do not show it. Nobody refused. Nobody had to. The model is still wrong in the same six ways.”

Greg Head’s analysis serves as a vital reminder for businesses implementing new technologies. Focusing solely on adoption rates can be misleading. True success lies in fostering an environment where users are empowered and motivated to teach, correct, and learn from the systems they use, ultimately driving genuine improvement and accuracy.