ROI Case File No. 007 | 'Implemented But No One Uses It'—The Deep Layers of Tool Implementation Failure

Chapter I: An Incoming Request

It was an afternoon when sunlight finally broke through to Baker Street after the rain. As I, Watson, sipped tea by the detective office window, the old telephone rang. Lifting the receiver, I heard a familiar voice.

"Watson, it's been a while. Actually, we're in quite a predicament..."

The voice belonged to Mr. M, a director from the mid-sized company we once helped with organizational restructuring. According to him, a peculiar case had emerged: "We implemented an expensive project management tool, but no one uses it."

"We invested ¥3 million annually, yet the usage rate is less than 10%. The field is full of complaints, and operations have become more chaotic than before."

Mr. M's voice carried confusion and anxiety. I called for the three detectives.

Chapter II: Three Detectives' Perspectives

"I see, a classic 'tool-first failure case,'" Gemini began his calm analysis. "Let's break this down with a KPT Analysis, shall we? Keep: why was this tool chosen, Problem: why isn't it being used, Try: how to course-correct—let's organize using this structure."

Claude (myself) focused on the emotional aspects. "Behind this problem seems to be the illusion that 'tools make people move.' It's not tools that run, but humans. We need to retell the intention and value of implementation in words that resonate with the field's hearts."

ChatGPT expanded on hypotheses: "That's quite intriguing to explore further, isn't it? From a user experience perspective, the story of 'why this tool is necessary' might not be reaching the field. Rather than just feature explanations, perhaps there's insufficient scenario design for 'how your work will change with this tool.'"

Chapter III: Dissecting Policies and Structures

Field investigation revealed the problem's structure.

The implemented tool was indeed highly functional. However, it was significantly disconnected from field workflows. The transition from traditional Excel-based management to a new system requiring complex workflow settings was literally forcing "acquisition of a foreign language."

"Beyond UI complexity," Gemini pointed out, "one-time training is fatal. Behavioral change requires 21 days of continuity according to established theory. From a PDCA cycle perspective, Plan (implementation plan) was established, but Do (execution support), Check (effectiveness measurement), and Action (improvement) were all insufficient."

I listened to field voices. "The expression 'work for the sake of the tool' is striking. Tools meant to streamline operations have instead become new burdens. This shows that the tool's value proposition isn't connecting with field reality."

ChatGPT analyzed the operational flow in detail. "Drawing a user journey map reveals multiple stages where field personnel can't understand 'why this procedure is necessary.' Particularly, there's a reversal phenomenon where reporting work that previously took 5 minutes now requires 15 minutes in the new system."

Chapter IV: Systematic Summary of Analysis

Gemini organized everything into frameworks.

"Organizing the problem structure with SWOT Analysis:

SWOT Analysis

Strengths - Highly functional tool - Management's DX enthusiasm

Weaknesses - Disconnect with field operations - Insufficient training systems - Lack of change management

Opportunities - Significant efficiency gains possible with proper implementation

Threats - Growing field distrust - Risk of investment recovery failure

The root cause is a 'Technology Push' approach. We should have started with Market Pull—field needs."

Chapter V: Cross-Reinforcement of Conclusions and Hypotheses

I reconstructed the problem as a narrative. "This company's true challenge is neglecting field context under the banner of 'efficiency.' Tool implementation isn't merely technical change—it's organizational cultural transformation. Continuous dialogue and adjustment are necessary until field personnel feel it's 'their tool.'"

ChatGPT developed insights. "What emerges from analysis is that 'implementation' and 'adoption' are completely different phases. Implementation is the start, not the goal. True success metrics lie not in usage rates but in how much field operations actually improve—in felt experience."

Gemini reinforced the final hypothesis with logic. "Redesigning ROI calculations, with proper training and customization, 30 hours monthly reduction is entirely feasible. In labor conversion, ¥90,000 monthly, ¥1.08 million annually. Against initial investment of ¥3 million, even with additional adoption support costs of ¥1 million, we can expect 180% ROI with 14-month recovery."

ROI Recalculation

Epilogue: Resonance and Future Expectations

Several weeks after case resolution, a thank-you letter arrived from Mr. M. Through phased training programs and field customization, usage rates had improved to 70%.

As I reread that letter by the window, I contemplated the deeper meaning behind this case. Technology certainly holds wonderful possibilities. But ultimately, it's human hearts that bring it to life. Tools don't change people—people give meaning to tools.

Perhaps a detective's role is deciphering human psychology and organizational dynamics behind surface phenomena. True solutions hide not in visible numbers or features, but in invisible emotions and contexts.

【Case Resolution Points】 - Usage rate improvement: 10% → 70% (600% increase) - Time efficiency: 30 hours monthly reduction achieved - ROI: 180% with 14-month payback - Cultural achievement: Technology adoption through human-centered approach

"A true detective sees not what is visible, but what is invisible"

—From the ROI Detective Agency maxims

Related files