You observe a low adoption rate. One obvious explanation is that people are resisting. But the observation and the explanation are not the same thing.
The situation
Six weeks into a rollout, the new system is live. Training has been delivered. The reason for the change has been explained. Yet relatively few people use it consistently.
The tempting conclusion is that staff are unwilling to change. It may be true. But what else could explain the same result?
Three questions before the next intervention
Does the new workflow fit the real work?
What happens when an ordinary task contains an exception that the new system does not handle well?
Who can make the necessary decision?
When someone encounters a conflict between the new process and a customer, deadline, or safety requirement, is the decision owner clear?
What does non-use actually prove?
Can people complete representative tasks under actual working conditions? Do they have the time, tools, incentives, and authority to do so?
The next move
Before scheduling another training session or communication campaign, observe the work itself. Compare where the system is used successfully with where it is not. Trace a few representative exceptions to see where they stop and why.
The goal is not to defend employees or blame management. It is to avoid confusing a visible symptom with a demonstrated cause.
A sound decision begins by asking what evidence could prove your current explanation wrong.