I’ve been reading the Change Function by Pip Coburn. Well worth a read.
Pip defines change as a function of the perceived crisis versus the total perceived pain of adoption, which he calls TPPA.
I find TPPA fascinating. Not because of what it means to fogeys like me, but because of its importance to Generation M.
TPPA is by definition relative to current installed software and the alternate version sought to be implemented.
Generation M will have high TPPA in the context of traditional enterprise architectures, tools and techniques. High TPPA in the context of current enterprise monocultures. Low TPPA in the context of social software and Web 2.0.
This time around, it is the enterprise that has to adjust itself in order to reduce TPA, whereas until now the onus of relieving TPA has been borne by the new entrant.
Interesting times.
Isn’t Pip’s premise pretty obvious? I’d have thought SAP, Accenture, Deloitte etc would have enough data points on change resistance to come to similar conclusions re: TPPA. From what I’ve observed with childreen/teenagers, it seems they want to be entertained and will devote time to learning something if it holds that promise.
I suspect that Gen M will be no less or more resistant to change than folks like thee and me because the fundamentals of human resistance haven’t been found to change over time (yet). But, I think they’re likely to be a lot more vocal in providing reasons for resistance and more adept at suggesting and adopting alternatives. Back to the deviance argument? :)
Maybe I didn’t make my point properly, it was late and I was tired.
Previous generations had no real exposure to computers and were therefore easy to indoctrinate.
Generation M is different and the TPPA price is high.