Do you think end users will still pick up on this is still a pilot (just called by another name) and fall into the negative behaviors described above. I like to use the term 'early adopters' to identify teams we want to pilot stuff on. We tell them we're coming to them first because they're a 'cut above' the rest of the teams when it comes to adoption and user feedback. Then communicate any limitations and clear expectations around what we want them to do.
Do you find that creates a better expectation for participants than what might be induced by the name "pilot."
There will be negatives and positives with any name. "Beta testers" might be exactly the kind of approach you want users to imply in some situations, but not in others.
I suppose our sensitivity is really around introducing a development program as a pilot. In that kind of context you will likely never get the full participation you might hope for in a new program.
Hello, David, I particularly appreciate your point to “communicate any limitations and clear expectations around what when we want them to do” in an internal participation, but may not be so easy to navigate in a promotion to the general public. What do you think?
I agree. My experience with this is small, mostly at a team level. One area where we've had some success (and our IT department too) is we keep lists of past 'pilot' users. We tend to use the same people/groups in future projects.
I find the same probability that a participant will assume it’s their role to offer critique when the term “beta” program is used.
I sense there are important considerations - and even a fine line to walk given the reality of how “new and untested” a program is to stay in integrity with potential users - and another, dependent on how much feedback a development team is seeking.
Apple has certainly been successful in the tech field with the term “early adopter” and things like “founder’s program” and “limited release” seem to be compelling for many.
I’d be curious to know what other titles readers have found effective in naming these kinds of new/test programs. Thanks.
Good thoughts Kathleen. I've been following the 4-day work week "trials" as they've been called both "experiments" and "trials" in the press.
I have wondered if those were the terms used as they were introduced in the various participating companies.
In that context you could see a manager would definitively want to communicate by the naming convention that it is temporary... probably want to over-communicate that it is a just a trial in order to be clear there is no obligation for management to move forward after the trial period.
Do you think end users will still pick up on this is still a pilot (just called by another name) and fall into the negative behaviors described above. I like to use the term 'early adopters' to identify teams we want to pilot stuff on. We tell them we're coming to them first because they're a 'cut above' the rest of the teams when it comes to adoption and user feedback. Then communicate any limitations and clear expectations around what we want them to do.
Sounds like a good name, David.
Do you find that creates a better expectation for participants than what might be induced by the name "pilot."
There will be negatives and positives with any name. "Beta testers" might be exactly the kind of approach you want users to imply in some situations, but not in others.
I suppose our sensitivity is really around introducing a development program as a pilot. In that kind of context you will likely never get the full participation you might hope for in a new program.
Hello, David, I particularly appreciate your point to “communicate any limitations and clear expectations around what when we want them to do” in an internal participation, but may not be so easy to navigate in a promotion to the general public. What do you think?
I agree. My experience with this is small, mostly at a team level. One area where we've had some success (and our IT department too) is we keep lists of past 'pilot' users. We tend to use the same people/groups in future projects.
I find the same probability that a participant will assume it’s their role to offer critique when the term “beta” program is used.
I sense there are important considerations - and even a fine line to walk given the reality of how “new and untested” a program is to stay in integrity with potential users - and another, dependent on how much feedback a development team is seeking.
Apple has certainly been successful in the tech field with the term “early adopter” and things like “founder’s program” and “limited release” seem to be compelling for many.
I’d be curious to know what other titles readers have found effective in naming these kinds of new/test programs. Thanks.
Great contextual considerations, Kathleen.
Many create the exact kind of performance incentives you might hope for in a given content, others might unexpectedly devalue.
Good thoughts Kathleen. I've been following the 4-day work week "trials" as they've been called both "experiments" and "trials" in the press.
I have wondered if those were the terms used as they were introduced in the various participating companies.
In that context you could see a manager would definitively want to communicate by the naming convention that it is temporary... probably want to over-communicate that it is a just a trial in order to be clear there is no obligation for management to move forward after the trial period.