VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

MOAT TYPE BREAKDOWN

NO ADVICE

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Moat GlossaryWide Moat Stocks Home My Collections

Demand moat

Training Org Change Costs Moat

15 companies · 17 segments

A demand-side moat where switching requires retraining people, changing processes, and navigating internal politics. Even if data can be migrated and contracts can be replaced, the organization’s human and process inertia makes change slow, risky, and expensive.

Domain

Demand moat

Advantages

5 strengths

Disadvantages

5 tradeoffs

Coverage

15 companies · 17 segments

Advantages

  • Retention via inertia: customers stick because switching causes productivity loss and internal disruption.
  • Pricing resilience: moderate increases are tolerated to avoid re-training and process overhaul.
  • Barrier to entry: challengers must offer a step-change benefit to justify organizational change.
  • Expansion leverage: once trained, rolling out to more teams/sites is easier than adopting a new vendor.
  • Defensive durability: even if alternatives exist, the organization’s “operating system” favors the incumbent.

Disadvantages

  • Stored-up churn: dissatisfaction can build until leadership mandates a big bang replacement.
  • Non-repeatable value: moat depends on organizational inertia, not necessarily product superiority.
  • Change events break it: mergers, restructures, new leadership, or new platforms can reset processes.
  • Competitive migration playbooks: rivals can erode the moat with training, change management, and services.
  • Ongoing investment needed: training materials, support, and enablement must stay strong to keep buy-in.

Why it exists

  • Skill investment: users build muscle memory, shortcuts, and tacit knowledge over time.
  • Process coupling: SOPs, approvals, and cross-team handoffs are designed around the incumbent tool/vendor.
  • Stakeholder complexity: many teams depend on the workflow (ops, IT, finance, compliance), increasing coordination cost.
  • Change risk: retraining and process change creates errors, productivity dips, and downtime risk.
  • Political friction: owners of the current system can resist change due to incentives, status, or risk aversion.

Where it shows up

  • Enterprise software used by large teams (ERP, CRM, HRIS, ticketing, analytics)
  • Operational workflows with heavy SOPs (manufacturing, logistics, healthcare operations)
  • Customer-facing workflows (contact centers, field service, dispatch, claims handling)
  • Regulated environments (compliance workflows, audit trails, controlled procedures)
  • Professional tools with steep learning curves (design, CAD, analytics, trading tools)
  • Education and training-heavy deployments (certified programs, standardized training paths)

Durability drivers

  • Wide user adoption across roles and teams (more stakeholders makes switching harder)
  • Deep embedding in SOPs and governance (approvals, audit processes, compliance checklists)
  • Strong enablement ecosystem (training, certifications, admin communities, partners/consultants)
  • High reliability and support (avoid incidents that motivate leadership to accept change pain)
  • Clear and evolving best-practice workflows that keep the tool aligned with how the org operates

Common red flags

  • Users dislike the tool and work around it (shadow systems), making change easier than it looks
  • Adoption is shallow (few teams), so retraining cost is overstated
  • Frequent org change (high turnover, reorganizations) repeatedly resets process lock-in
  • A competitor offers a strong migration + training program that neutralizes change pain
  • A major incident creates leadership appetite to endure switching pain

How to evaluate

Key questions

  • How many people are trained, and how costly is retraining (time, lost productivity, errors)?
  • How many processes and SOPs depend on the incumbent, and how hard are they to rewrite?
  • Who are the internal stakeholders and blockers, and how political is vendor replacement?
  • Can switching be phased with parallel runs, or is it a disruptive cutover?
  • What events historically trigger replacements in this category (M&A, incidents, consolidation, leadership change)?

Metrics & signals

  • User penetration (seats, active users, departments/sites using the system)
  • Training load (training hours per user, certification counts, admin community size)
  • Workflow criticality and frequency (daily tasks, approvals, handoffs dependent on the tool)
  • Support burden and satisfaction (tickets per user, CSAT, time-to-resolution)
  • Renewal behavior and pricing on renewal (uplift vs discounting, churn clustering)
  • Implementation complexity tied to process (custom workflows, approval chains, SOP artifacts)
  • Competitive displacement patterns (how often rip-and-replace happens and why)

Examples & patterns

Patterns

  • Large deployments where certifications and internal training programs make replacement costly
  • Workflow tools that become embedded in SOPs and compliance documentation
  • Contact center and ops systems where retraining causes immediate productivity drops
  • Platforms with strong admin communities and partner ecosystems that sustain adoption

Notes

  • This moat is human, not technical. It is strongest when adoption is broad and workflows are standardized around the incumbent.
  • The key risk is a forcing event: once leadership decides to change, organizational inertia flips from protection to a one-time migration project.

Examples in the moat database

Curation & Accuracy

This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).

Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.