Week in and week out, Christian churches across the world dutifully take attendance.  This takes great effort from both paid staff and volunteers alike.  It could be said, sadly, that we are more consistent in taking attendance than we are at living as Christ followers. 

One might think that I am about to take issue with the unnecessary expenditure of effort of taking attendance, but I'm not.  My biggest issue is not that we are wasting our time with attendance, it is that we are wasting the effort by leaving the collected data on the roll sheets or in the church management system.  Bottom line is that it is impossible to close the back door of a church unless you create ways to catch people on their way out.  Gone is gone.  I am convinced that part of good stewardship in a church is to be faithful with the lives entrusted to those in leadership.  Please indulge me in the following train of thought.

• Attendance records are just attendance records until they are turned in to useful data.
• Data is just data until it is turned into a useful report.
• Reports are just reports until they are analyzed and turned into a plan.
• A plan is just a plan until it is put into action.
• Actions are just actions until they are managed to change a situation.

and finally,

• Changed situations are just... wait a minute... this is what we are after!

 If we intend to fix the "back door problem" in our churches (and I hear this all the time in churches), we must make sure that we are measuring what is measurable, applying proper context and formulating good plans in order to act strategically. 

Now, let me be clear.  God causes the change in the situation.  We are merely being good stewards of those people with whom we have been entrusted.  That being said, do you want to close the back door?  Then guard it! 

Having helped hundreds of churches implement various technology solutions, I have come to appreciate the difference between potential and real improvement in church processes.  Simply put, purchase decisions are made on the potential of becoming more effective, while the reality is that most will never achieve success.  The reason for this phenomenon is different in every church but I have seen several factors that are common.

1. Technology implementation is viewed as an issue of minor importance.  This is a misguided perception, but all too common.  If proper use and application of tools were not important, I would be able to build a house with the tools in my garage!  After all, they are the right tools.  The truth is that I could build something using my tools, but it would not be a house you would want to live in!  The correlation is that the implementation process will be the determining factor between success and failure.  Since technology is just a tool for a church to use, it is incumbent on the leaders to make sure that the tools are used properly and for the right purpose.
2. Technology implementation is viewed as a lower priority than all other ministry activities.  On the surface, this seems like a reasonable statement.  After all, it is the ministry that matters, right?  Well, yes, but if the implementation is never temporarily elevated to a high place of priority it will never be used effectively. Leaders must properly position the project as a temporary high priority so that there can be an actual improvement in ministry performance. Afterward, technology can go back to it's appropriate supporting role.
   
3. Technology implementation is not put in proper perspective.  Let's face it, change = pain!  People don't like change and they resist the hard work unless they see the value in the outcome.  The staff needs to know that the change is being made for the improvement of ministry efforts and not just to have the latest technology.  The senior leadership of the staff will either sanction the project by properly framing the intent of the changes or they will allow it to languish in obscurity.  Typically, all I want from a senior pastor on a technology project is for him to share his perspective of why the changes are needed with the staff.  The project requires his unwavering support of the implementation process and the intent to see it to the finish.  I like to think of it as similar to early settlers burning the ships on the shore so that everyone knew that going back was not an option. 
   
4. Technology implementation is led by someone with too little authority.  A good implementation plan will include tasks that need to be performed and accountability for those who have been given those tasks.  Many times, an administrative person of the staff has been given the unenviable task of managing the project.  How can they possibly hold a pastor accountable for their tasks?  The most successful implementations of technology always have a senior staff leader who owns the project to completion.

It all comes down to this.  If the benefit of the technology is never achieved, then all of the planning and effort was a complete and utter waste of time and money.  The worst part is that the staff had to go through the pain of change even though the benefit was not attained.  Most times, we just blame the technology and look for a new solution rather than admit that the implementation was a failure.  It is always humorous to hear people get excited about a cool feature in a new software program that existed in their old system!

There are many reasons to implement new technology.  I encourage churches to use as much care in the implementation as they did in the tool selection.  Technology can provide great benefits if it is used the right way, at the right time, by the right people, with the right training, for the right purpose.