Dennis Howlett raised a question after my post on Pip Coburn’s book. [BTW it was by no means an attempt to critique the book, I haven’t even finished reading it yet.]
Let me try and put my point forward differently, see if it makes sense to you.
A change function has to bridge two or more different states.
TPPA, in the Coburn definition, is part of this function.
So far so good. And while some of it may seem “obvious” I have no problem with “obvious”, give me more.
I was then musing about the different states, the before and after.
And I came to this realisation.
Before Generation M, the before state and the after state were both “within the organisation”. So TPPA looked at what one used to do within the organisation as part of the basis for determining pain of adoption.
With Generation M, the before state is at home and the after state is at work. And with consumerisation and increased mobility, multitasking support and use of multimedia, with social software and opensource, the whole adoption model for Generation M is different. Where the before state is outside the firm and generational, TPPA is very high. This is not an issue of training. Generation M will resist what doesn’t make sense to them and vote with their feet and their fingers.
Does that help?