Why do we keep teaching people how to use complicated software?

“We need more user training.”

Maybe.

But why?

“People keep making mistakes in the system.”

Okay. What mistakes?

“They forget which screen to open, which fields to fill in, and which buttons to click.”

Interesting.

So the software is difficult to use.

And our solution is to make people memorize it?

I’ve worked with enterprise software for more than 20 years.

I’ve seen systems with hundreds of screens, complicated menus, mysterious field names, and processes that require users to know far more about the technology than their actual jobs.

Some of that complexity is unavoidable.

But a surprising amount exists because we designed the software around the system instead of the person using it.

Imagine a customer service employee handling a complaint.

They need to know three things.

• What happened?
• What can I do about it?
• What should happen next?

But the software asks them to navigate through customer records, transaction histories, document repositories, workflow screens, and reporting tools.

Five applications.

One customer complaint.

Then we create a training course to explain the journey.

And when the employee forgets something, we schedule refresher training.

Perhaps the employee isn’t the problem.

I’d approach the problem differently.

Start by watching how someone actually works.

Not how the process documentation says they should work.

Watch what they open, what they copy, what they search for, and where they get stuck.

Pay attention to the spreadsheets beside the enterprise application.

Those spreadsheets often reveal what the official software is missing.

Then ask what the person really needs to accomplish.

• Could the application show the relevant information in one place?
• Could it suggest the next action?
• Could it handle routine steps automatically?
• Could it explain an exception in plain language?
• And could it do all that without hiding important information or taking away the user’s control?

AI creates another interesting opportunity.

Instead of asking someone to search through ten screens, perhaps they can ask a question in plain language.

“Why is this request still open?”

AI could gather the relevant information and explain what happened.

But I’d be careful.

A conversational interface isn’t automatically better.

If the user needs to approve fifty requests, a well-designed worklist with clear actions might be much faster than chatting with an AI fifty times.

Sometimes the best interface is a conversation.

Sometimes it’s a table.

Sometimes it’s one button.

The goal isn’t to make every application look futuristic.

It’s to make the work easier.

And training still matters.

People need to understand policies, judgment, exceptions, and the consequences of their actions.

But they shouldn’t need a three-day course just to find the Save button.

When I think about Blank Canvas Thinking, this is one of my favorite questions.

What would we build if we stopped assuming the user had to adapt to the software?

Maybe we’d end up with fewer screens.

Maybe fewer manuals.

And maybe a lot fewer meetings about why nobody is using the new system.