Frustration: "They don't use the new system."
When teams do not adopt a new system, the problem is often not resistance or poor training. It is usually friction between the workflow and how the operation actually runs.
A story I've seen before, and what's usually behind it
I had a customer not long ago. Around 20 locations. Good people, solid operation, nothing unusual.
They had invested time in rolling out the system properly. Introduced it, trained their teams, explained how it should be used. On paper, everything was in place.
A few months later, the message came back: "They don't use the system."
And that was more or less the end of the conversation. If people don't use it, there's no value. Fair enough.
But if you've worked with operations for a while, you recognise this moment. Because it shows up again and again, in different shapes, across restaurants, retail, gyms, cleaning companies. The industry changes, the pattern doesn't.
And it almost never starts with the system.
The assumption behind failed adoption
It starts with an assumption. A quiet one, but a powerful one: "Now that we've bought a good system, things will start working the way we want."
Better routines. More consistency. Clearer communication. A sense that things are now under control.
As if the system itself will somehow drive behaviour.
It won't.
When the digital flow meets the real shift
What actually happened in this case was much more down to earth. The setup expected frontline staff to log in during their shift, use shared tablets or their phones, and actively work inside the system while everything else was going on around them.
And in that environment, the reality was simple. The tempo was high. Devices weren't always available. The focus was, quite rightly, on customers. So nothing dramatic happened. No protests, no pushback.
People just did not use it.
That's the part that's easy to misread. It looks like resistance, or lack of discipline. But more often it's just friction. The way the system is expected to be used doesn't quite fit the way the work actually happens.
And when there's a mismatch like that, the operation always wins.
“Everyone using it” is not always the right rollout model
I think this is where many rollouts go slightly off track. We design them as if everyone should be equally involved. Everyone logs in, everyone ticks things off, everyone follows the same digital flow. It makes sense when you explain it. It looks great in a presentation.
But out in the real world, especially in fast-moving environments, that's a big ask.
If you look at the customers who actually make this work over time, they don't all do it the same way. But they tend to arrive at a similar structure.
Someone owns it. Often a shift leader or a manager. The team does the work, but one role is responsible for making sure it's done, checked, and followed up.
You move from "everyone should use the system" to "someone is accountable for the outcome."
It's a small shift in thinking, but it changes everything. And that is usually enough.
What I would do differently
If I were to go back to that 20-location rollout and do it again, I wouldn't start with access for everyone. I'd start by deciding who actually needs to use the system day to day for this to work. In some cases, that might be the whole team. In many cases, it's one person per shift.
From there, I'd keep it tight. A few key routines. Opening, closing, the things that really matter for quality and consistency. Get that working first, make it visible, follow up on it. Let it become part of how the day runs.
And maybe most importantly, I'd treat it for what it is. Not an installation, but a change. A change in how work is done, how responsibility is defined, how things are followed up.
That doesn't happen because a system is good. It happens because someone leads it, consistently.
The better question
When someone says "they don't use the system", it's tempting to look for what's wrong. With the tool, with the staff, with the training.
But more often the better question is: did we set this up in a way that fits how we actually operate?
Because when it does fit, you rarely have to chase usage. It just becomes part of how the work gets done.
And when it doesn't, even the best system in the world will quietly sit on the side.
Canonical: /blog/they-dont-use-the-system