Chapter 5: Readiness and tech adoption
Associates use what they’re given. The rollout decides how effectively
How much they use them, and how far they trust the data, tracks how the technology was introduced: the training, the numbers, and a part in the pilot. Closing those gaps is what turns better data into hours recovered.
Store technology does get used. How well depends on how it arrived.
Six in ten associates still use most or all of the digital tools (the devices, apps and software) introduced in the past two years. The rest use some of them, and only a small minority have dropped them altogether. 85% can explain why on-shelf availability, store layout, pricing, and expiry matter to the business.
What separates the six in ten from the rest sits on the employer’s side. Most associates don’t see the store’s performance regularly, two thirds learned the technology they use every shift from a walkthrough, a colleague or nobody, and a third of those who have seen new tools introduced were never asked for input at all.
It shows: associates with structured training use more of their tools and trust the data more, as do associates who were part of a pilot.
85%
Can explain how availability, shelf layout, pricing, and expired products affect store results.
1 in 3
Associates who have seen new tools rolled out were never asked for input.
Most associates can say why the work matters. Fewer were ever told.
Asked how confidently they could explain how on-shelf availability, shelf layout, pricing, and expiry affect their store’s results, 85% say very or somewhat confidently.
Most associates were never told clearly why their work matters. 85% can explain it anyway.
- 57%
don't see their store's performance regularly
- 63%
were never told clearly, with numbers, why the work matters
- 85%
can explain it confidently anyway
Share of all associates who don’t see their store’s performance regularly; were never clearly told, with numbers, why availability, layout, pricing and expiry matter to the business; and say they could explain it confidently anyway.
Much of that is picked up on the job, because the explanation rarely came from the employer. Nearly two thirds (63%) were never told clearly, with figures, why those things matter to the business. More than half (57%) don’t see their store’s performance regularly. So most associates have a working sense of what matters, and no numbers to measure themselves against.
Where a retailer did explain it, the difference shows. Among associates whose employer explained the commercial case, even partly, 89% are confident they could explain it themselves. Among those who were never told, 58% are. A 31-point gap, from one conversation most retailers aren’t having.
And confidence carries through to behavior: associates who can explain the impact very confidently are more than twice as likely to trust their stock data (48% against 19% of those who can’t) and use more of the tools they’re given (71% against 45%).
The view from head office. Asked for one thing they would fix.
Associates having better understanding of the technology they have available and how to use it.
IT Director
:format(webp))
Asking associates to complete tasks and update systems needs to have a ‘why’ attached, and transparency in the outcomes for the whole store team if they take that action. When we give associates visibility into the impact they can have on their store and their teams, we give them a purpose.
Anne Mezzenga, CEO and Founder, Retail Field Report
Trained by walkthrough
Structured training is the exception.
How associates were trained on the tech they use on shift
| Training | Share |
|---|---|
| Structured training | 33 |
| A brief walkthrough | 41 |
| From colleagues | 21 |
| No training | 5 |
Survey question: “When you started your current role, what kind of training did you get on the technology and devices you use on your shift?” Share of all associates.
A third of associates (33%) describe structured training on the technology and devices they use on shift when they started their role.
The rest learned from:
- A brief walkthrough (41%)
- Learned from colleagues (21%)
- No training at all (5%).
This describes onboarding, not whatever training program runs today. But it is the moment an associate forms the habits that maintain the record for years, and for two in three it was a walkthrough or less.
It shows. Associates who had structured training use more of their tools (67% still use most or all, against 57% after a walkthrough and 37% with no training) and trust the data more (44%, against 31% and 25%).
Associates asked what they’d change
More consultation from head office with us, who are the ones facing the customer.
Store Associate, Italy, Grocery Hypermarket
I would update my employees on any new incoming technology to the store. I’m never updated on anything, I find out about it way after it has been implemented!
Store Associate, US, Department Store
Avoid changing the apps, as they keep doing, which cost money but don’t work properly.
Store Associate, France, Department Store
What Scandit has seen in stores
In our own deployments, people new to a shelf-capture tool typically take one to two weeks to reach full speed, and the least experienced users improve around threefold in that time.
The tool doesn’t change. The person’s familiarity with it does, and the first fortnight is where most of the resistance either dissolves or sets. That is what a pilot buys: the tool proven in a live store, fitted to the processes already running there, and the lessons from those two weeks captured before the rollout reaches the stores that never got to try it.
Ask the floor, then scale what the pilot taught
Among associates who have seen new tools introduced, a third (34%) were never asked for input.
Associates who piloted new tools trust the stock data most
| Consultation | Still use most or all new tools | Trust the stock data (very much or completely) |
|---|---|---|
| Part of a pilot | 74 | 50 |
| Asked before roll-out | 61 | 38 |
| Asked after roll-out | 65 | 31 |
| Never asked | 61 | 25 |
Survey question: “When new tools were rolled out, were you or your team asked for input?” Shows associates who have seen new tools introduced, which groups still use most or all of the tools (in past 2 years), and who trust their store’s stock information very much or completely.
A further 28% of associates were asked before roll-out and 18% only after it. One in five (20%) were part of a pilot.
It matters. Trust in the stock data rises from a quarter (25%) of those never asked, to 38% of those asked before roll-out, to half (50%) of those who were part of a pilot, who also use more of their tools (74% still use most or all, against 61% of everyone else). This is an association, not a proven cause, but it points the same way as everything else in this chapter.
No retailer can run a pilot in every store. Two things are within reach. Ask associates what gets in the way of the data and the tools, because they see it every shift and most have never been asked. And when a pilot works, treat what the pilot associates learned as the rollout plan, not a footnote: the training, the workflow, and the numbers go to every store that didn’t get to try it first.
Larger retailers find it harder
Associates at employers with 10,000 staff or more are the best equipped (75% have a handheld, against 64% at employers with 1,000 to 5,000) but are the least likely to have been asked at all (43% never asked, against 22%), and they trust the data less (33% against 40%).
:format(webp))
When planning technology deployments, we assume the perfect environment. Proper testing with associates shows how it works when the internet is down, there is a line to the door, or an angry customer. The data contrasts with what's commonly assumed: six in ten associates keep using most of the new tools either way. Those who stand apart were part of a proper pilot. Three in four still use most of the tools they piloted, and they’re twice as likely to trust the data. I can’t promise the pilot is the only reason; good stores often get picked for pilots. Being asked what you think and being part of the test are two very different things. Nobody has a real opinion on a tool until it’s been in their hands for a few weeks.
Andrew Smith, Managing Partner and co-founder, ThinkUncommon
And yet, associates are using what they’re given
The technology deployed in stores isn't being ignored.
What share of tools/tech introduced in the past 2 years do associates still use weekly?
Nearly 2 in 3 use most or all
| Proportion still used | Share |
|---|---|
| All of them | 19 |
| Most of them | 40 |
| Around half | 21 |
| A few of them | 11 |
| None of them | 1 |
| No new tools introduced | 8 |
Survey question: “Thinking about the digital tools and technologies introduced to you for your job in the past two years, such as devices, apps or software, what proportion do you still use in a typical week?”
Of the digital tools introduced in the past two years, associates reported their weekly usage of them as follows:
- 19% of associates still use all of them
- 40% use most of them
- 21% use around half of them
- 11% use a few of them
- 1% have dropped them entirely
- 8% say no new tools have reached them at all.
That is not a floor resisting technology.
Where use is lower, the difference sits on the employer’s side: the training, the numbers, and a part in the pilot. Chapter 6 shows what closing that gap is worth, and how to measure your own.
What this means for AI in store
AI in stores depends on people who maintain the inventory record every shift. Two in three were never formally trained on the technology they use to do it, and most were never shown why it matters.
Readiness isn’t an add-on to an AI program. It decides whether the tools that feed the record get used as intended and the tasks that keep it accurate get done, and that decides whether the model is reading the store or a version of it.