End-user education for new systems: who can legitimately conduct training and educational programs during and after MIS implementation?

Introduction / Context:
Successful MIS implementation depends on effective training and change management. Different stakeholder groups bring complementary strengths: HR can design curricula and facilitate sessions, the IS team knows the system's technical details, and supervisors contextualize training for day-to-day workflows. Coordinated involvement raises adoption and reduces post-go-live issues.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Training spans system navigation, security, data entry quality, and process changes.
• Adult learning benefits from practice, relevance, and reinforcement on the job.
• Multiple trainers ensure coverage from principles to hands-on application.

Concept / Approach:
HR (or a learning and development unit) designs programs, schedules sessions, and measures training outcomes. IS staff deliver technical demonstrations, answer configuration questions, and handle troubleshooting. Supervisors connect system use to performance expectations and local procedures, offering coaching and reinforcement. This division of labor reflects best practice in organizational change initiatives.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Change frameworks (for example, ADKAR) emphasize leadership alignment, training, and reinforcement at the local level in addition to central instruction, supporting this multi-party approach.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Any single group alone risks gaps in either pedagogy, technical accuracy, or contextual relevance.
• None: incorrect because all listed groups can and should contribute.

Common Pitfalls:
Relying solely on technical demos without job context; failing to follow up training with on-the-job reinforcement from supervisors.

Final Answer:
All of the above