Difficulty moving some users to ArcGIS Pro from ArcMap

Question

I'm curious if anyone else is experiencing this issue!

For the most part, we've had our entire organization on ArcGIS Pro since 2020. We had to move because deploying and installing Pro was SIGNIFICANTLY easier that ArcMap during the pandemic. I had already been installing it on some machines the year prior, but decided to just go for it because in it made it easier to manage.

It took a second to figure out (I still have to Google stuff sometimes) - but all in all, everyone was really happy with the switch. We had to redo some processes, but it was for the better. Since 2021, I've only had 1 occasion where I needed to install ArcMap for a small research group - and it was only because they were doing a research project with a government entity that was using an ArcToolbox that was not compatible yet with Pro. But that has only been once since 2021 that we needed ArcMap.

But with some new incoming users experienced with ESRI software - I've had multiple people mention that they are reluctant to switch to ArcGIS Pro because they hear that it REQUIRES a coding background in order to use the software.

I also have very minimal background in coding - but I've had 0 issues with ArcGIS Pro! Typically, I'll work with the user to show them how to duplicate their process in Pro. That usually helps to convince them to make the switch. But it's come up multiple times that their specific reason is "they hear it requires code to work".

Yes, coding helps and can automate things, but it makes it less accessible to the general public. It's a little frustrating that it's the impression some users are getting, and it's causing a lot of stress for some making the switch, so I feel a little bad about that.

Anywho! That's just my two cents. Curious if anyone else has run into this problem a well and how they've dealt with it.

RTPL_AU · Answer

My previous comment  devolved a bit and to keep things digestible I thought to add the how-to-get-people-onboard in a separate post.

@SaraJL Find a way to share knowledge between more experienced staff and newcomers to Pro. Have a space (internal wiki, etc) where people can post code snippets, Arcade label miracles, raster function templates, sharing config files for the unofficial Esri CoolTools add-in, how to use the Quick Access Toolbar as a permanent & transportable shortcut bar, how to edit domains in an XML editor, and all the other little things that it takes to make Pro a productive tool.  
If you have people set in their ArcMap ways, they will find using Pro hard/tiring due to its many issues, and not having to keep figuring things out by themselves will help get them on board faster.

I feel it may not be the best to just pour the Esri marketing videos or pages on them - the devil is in the details and sharing those details between staff is much more valuable than them realising that the perfect data used in the demo is not the same in Pro as their messy WIP address file. 
Example - It is easy to open a mxd in Pro and publish a layer to ArcGIS Online according to the Esri videos I've seen but they don't mention this part although they know about it  ... Make sure to check & replace all symbology created it ArcMap after the import before publishing, because Pro has issues with some styles that then cause issues in Online.

Most days I can have Pro, ArcMap/Catalog, and QGIS open at the same time and use each for its strengths.  This is not always possible in some orgs but if you have ArcMap licenses and skilled users that understand proper data management and the differences between Pro & ArcMap, why not give them all the tools they need to make you money/protect or help citizens?

EdMorris · Answer

@SaraJL - This is a brilliant answer by @Laura !!

RTPL_AU · Answer

From my point of view I can understand how some people might think you need to be code-capable to be proficient in Pro.
With everything possible in Arcade and having Jupyter Notebooks as a built-in feature, if you can 'code' you will be better off.  
In some cases it is easier to script a task rather than trying to accommodate Pro's laggy UI, dynamic ribbon that seems to always open the wrong tab, or trying to find 'that tool' that you used a while ago.

For some tasks, ArcMap tools (e.g. Catalog) are just faster & easier and I will continue to use it while it can run in my network; saying that, I also use QGIS or write a GDAL script or two as needed.  Did you have XTools for ArcMap? Get it for Pro.

Pick the right tool for a task; and right can mean most efficient in mouse clicks, mouse moves, time spent to load the application, cleaning the ProPoo (random empty folders, etc it creates) and so on.
A good example is Pro not currently able to use DDP/Map Series in a map window to help with editing/review, or running GP tasks in a batch  - the Pro batch process is both better and much worse than ArcMap, depending on the task.

Just because it's new (going on 10y...) doesn't mean its always better.  
There is nothing wrong with using ArcMap if you have paid for a permanent license and you use it to be more efficient/productive than you would be in Pro. If you use ArcMap with ArcGIS Online you need to step away from the computer slowly and have a cup of tea.

3.3.1, bar its unstable nature compared to other recent versions, seems to be the best of the bunch so far.

EDITS:
Some language fixes.

Comments: I am very critical of Pro. Why? I use it to generate my income and knowing how great many of the Esri staff are, it should just be better.
Based on my workflows and client-base there just seems to be so much more time spent figuring out a workaround for a Pro shortcoming that I cannot in good conscience bill a client for.

Like what? You have a large number of  completed maps and the client needs a new layer added to some of them. Open the project, update the document control number, save a new copy of the project, add the layer, add some transparency to another, add the new one to the legend. Based on the existing legend content there is a large probability that I will have to spend a few minutes wrangling with the various font and patch sizes to get it to match all the other maps because there is no full manual mode for legends. Who pays for that time? This is not an issue in ArcMap unless you've got some very specific settings in place.

Save the project and export the Layout to pdf.  Fantastic - Pro now creates visible lines in pdfs (not Adobe's fault entirely). I know the client doesn't use Adobe Reader so the viewing workaround doesn't work for them.
I can fix this by using group layer transparency or a vector layer on top that fakes a transparency but again - who pays for that time?  ArcMap pdfs are fine. For my maps the 'better' way Pro can do things in pdfs don't matter, if my clients don't want to see lines in the pdf when they view it in Edge, Sumatra, Kofax, Bluebeam. etc.

For new users this is their "it's always been like that". For experienced people that have used many applications from multiple industries (not just GIS) - no matter how much Kool-Aid is put in marketing material, Pro has issues; that can be resolved if Esri put their focus on it. If it was great it wouldn't take near 10 years to get all users onboard.