For all the progress we've made in software development over the last 20 years, introducing a new platform into our organizations is still far more chaotic than it needs to be.

Think about an organ transplant. I'm not a doctor, but I've watched enough Grey's Anatomy to know you don't start with the organ. You start with the patient. Is a transplant the right intervention? Is the patient healthy enough? Is it a good match? Does the patient have other health concerns that could affect the outcome? And what will be required after the surgery for the transplant to be successful long-term?

Now imagine focusing almost entirely on finding the organ and completing the procedure without paying attention to the body receiving it. I'm stretching the analogy, of course, but we do something remarkably similar with technology implementations.

We select a platform for what it must “do” for us. We negotiate a contract, configure the platform, provide training videos, and launch. We manage the implementation as a transaction when, in reality, we’re introducing something new into a complex, living system.

No new platform enters a clean slate. It enters an organization with established processes, competing priorities, spreadsheets people love, inconsistent data, formal workflows, and unofficial ways of getting things done. Change one important part and others will inevitably be affected. Technology has a way of quickly exposing quirks in processes and dependencies.

Imagine planning to introduce a new customer relationship management (CRM) solution only find out that the sales team staff doesn’t define a lead the same way or that you don’t have a defined, trackable business development approach. Or exploring a new association management system (AMS) only to find out that three departments use three different terms for “a member.” Or looking to AI to automate a manual process only to uncover that every department performs that workflow differently with different tools.

Sometimes the technology is the problem. It may be the wrong platform or poorly configured, or it may have been greatly oversold. But often, technology simply makes existing organizational problems and staff’s makeshift problem solving more visible and harder to ignore.

Focus on Fit More Than Features

Before adopting a solution, we should spend much more time asking what will need to change for us to accelerate the “time to value,” meaning the time necessary to reach the outcomes we’re intending from the new platform. How will it affect how we work? How will it affect the way we serve members or customers? Who will own the platform, its data, and its ongoing evolution once the implementation team is gone? These questions aren't nearly as exciting as a product demo, but they are considerably more important. For example, if the goal is to reduce administrative work, or make better use of data, identify a few meaningful measures and establish a baseline. How long does it take to process a membership renewal today? How much time is spent manually reconciling data? Without a clear starting point and intended outcomes, it’s difficult to know whether the investment is paying off.

Adoption isn’t a one-time event. It requires ongoing attention, adjustments and accountability long after the vendor implementation team has moved on. Define success well before implementation, measure against that baseline and adjust over time.

Go-Live Tells You Very Little About Value

This is where the transplant comparison becomes useful again. We would never evaluate a major medical intervention solely on whether the procedure happened on time and on budget. What happens post-surgery matters much more.

Yet technology projects are still frequently measured by implementation timelines and launch dates. Answering a few questions reveals whether the technology is creating the intended value: Are people using it? Have the workarounds disappeared? Can we access the data we need to make decisions with less friction? Is it making things easier for staff and members? Ultimately, successful implementation comes down to preparing the organization, not just the project. Organizations that embrace this approach eliminate chaos and turn technology investments into measurable value.