One of the most feared aspect of change by organisations is its impact on performance. There is a wide variety of change which can determine the potential for performance dips during the change process. However, there is a significant body of research on the phenomenon of performance dip during system implementation. This refers to a temporary decrease in performance or productivity that often occurs when a new system is introduced or a significant change is made to an existing system. In this article we review key research studies on performance dips during change.
What are some of the research studies on performance dips during system implementation? Here are a few research studies that provide some insight into the degree of performance dips during system implementation:
A study published in the Journal of Computer Information Systems in 2019 found that performance dips during ERP implementation projects can range from 10% to 25% on average, with some organizations experiencing dips as high as 40%.
A study published in the Journal of Information Technology Management in 2011 found that performance dips during enterprise system implementation can range from 5% to 50% on average, depending on the organization and the type of system being implemented.
A study published in the International Journal of Information Management in 2016 found that performance dips during electronic health record (EHR) system implementation can range from 5% to 60% on average, depending on the organization and the level of customization required for the EHR system.
What about for transformation programs? What are some of the findings on how much performance could dip during the transformational change process?
Here are some examples of the percentage of performance dips observed in various transformation programs:
A study by McKinsey & Company found that organizations undergoing digital transformations typically experience a 10% to 15% dip in productivity during the implementation phase.
A research report by the Hackett Group found that companies implementing large-scale enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems experience an average performance dip of 5% to 15% during the implementation phase.
A case study of a large Australian bank’s transformation program found that the organization experienced a 10% to 20% dip in productivity during the implementation phase.
A study of 10 organizations that had implemented new supply chain management systems found that they experienced an average productivity dip of 12% during the implementation phase.
The percentage of performance dips
The percentage of performance dip with transformation programs can vary widely depending on a variety of factors, such as the size and complexity of the transformation, the industry, the specific processes and systems being impacted, and the level of planning and support provided during the implementation.
It’s important to note that these percentages are only rough estimates, and the actual performance dip can vary widely depending on the specific context of the transformation program. Organizations can minimize the impact of performance dip by carefully planning and managing the implementation process, providing appropriate training and support to employees, and monitoring performance closely during and after the implementation.
Why causes the performance dip?
One key factor that contributes to performance dip is the learning curve associated with the new system. Users need time to become familiar with the new software or hardware and may initially struggle to complete tasks at the same speed or with the same level of accuracy as they did with the previous system.
Another factor is the disruption to established workflows and processes that can occur during system implementation. When a new system is introduced, it often requires changes to the way work is done, which can lead to confusion, feelings of loneliness, and delays until everyone adjusts to the new way of doing things.
Research has found that performance dip tends to be most pronounced in the initial stages of system implementation and can last anywhere from a few days to several months, depending on the complexity of the system and the level of support provided to users during the transition.
Overall, it is largely change management factors that can cause performance dips. For example:
Resistance to change. When employees are asked to change the way they work, they may resist the change, leading to a decline in performance. Resistance can be due to various reasons, including fear of the unknown, lack of understanding of the reasons for the change, and concerns about job security.
Implementation issues: When new processes or technologies are not implemented correctly, they may not work as intended, leading to a decline in performance. Implementation issues can be due to various reasons, including inadequate planning, insufficient resources, and unrealistic timelines.
Communication breakdowns: When communication between stakeholders breaks down, it can lead to confusion and misunderstandings, leading to a decline in performance. Communication breakdowns can be due to various reasons, including inadequate planning, insufficient resources, and unrealistic expectations.
Organizational culture: Organizational culture can also contribute to performance dips during transformation programs. When the organizational culture does not support change, employees may be resistant to it, leading to a decline in performance. Organizational culture can be due to various reasons, including leadership style, history, and values.
What about performance dips when there are multiple changes going on?
Research has shown that implementing multiple changes simultaneously can lead to a higher risk of performance dips. Here are some examples of research studies that have explored this issue:
“The Effects of Multiple Change Initiatives on Perceptions of Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Outcomes” by Michael Tushman and Philip Anderson (2004): This study found that implementing multiple change initiatives at the same time can lead to increased uncertainty and confusion among employees, which can lead to a decline in performance.
The Effect of Multiple Change Programs on Employee Well-being and Work Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study” by Michal Biron and Yair Bamberger (2012): This study found that implementing multiple change programs simultaneously can lead to increased stress and burnout among employees, which can negatively impact their performance in a negative workplace culture.
“The Impact of Multiple Change Initiatives on Perceived Organizational Performance” by Matthew Davis and Stephen Taylor (2008): This study found that implementing multiple change initiatives simultaneously can lead to a decline in perceived organizational performance, which can impact employee morale and motivation.
“Managing Multiple Organizational Changes: The Role of Prior Change Implementation and Timing of Change Initiatives” by Sebastian Kunert and Christiane Stenger (2019): This study found that implementing multiple changes simultaneously can lead to a higher risk of performance dips, but that prior experience with change implementation and careful timing of change initiatives can help to mitigate this risk.
Overall, these studies suggest that implementing multiple changes simultaneously can lead to a higher risk of performance dips. However, it is not that organisations should simply avoid implementing simultaneous changes. Morever, implementing simultaneous change is a fact of corporate life and continuous development. No modern organisation can survive by implementing only one singular change at a given time.
How to avoid performance dips across the portfolio of change initiatives
“Managing multiple change initiatives: the role of planning, sequencing, and implementation” by Jelena Spanjol and Susan Ashford (2018): This study found that careful planning and sequencing of change initiatives can help to reduce the negative impact of multiple changes on employee performance. The authors suggest that organizations should prioritize changes based on their strategic importance, and implement changes in a way that minimizes disruption to employees, incorporating AI to streamline processes.
In particular, the following 3 points have been highlighted.
Prioritization: Organizations should prioritize changes based on their strategic importance, and implement changes in a way that minimizes disruption to employees. This can involve aligning changes with the organization’s overall strategy, and ensuring that employees understand how the changes will benefit the organization.
Timing and sequence: The timing and sequence of changes can have a significant impact on employee performance. Organizations should consider the timing of changes relative to other initiatives, as well as the sequence of changes. For example, changes that are more disruptive to employees may be better implemented after other, less disruptive changes.
Coordination: Effective coordination of multiple change initiatives is crucial to minimize the negative impact on employee performance. Organizations should ensure that there is clear communication and coordination between different departments and teams involved in the changes, and that there is adequate support and resources available to employees to help them adapt to the changes.
In fact similar findings have been concluded across various McKinsey studies as well. Having clear prioritisation and sequencing is absolutely integral to deliver significant value to the organisation across the initiative portfolio. 40% more value. That is correct. Organizations that are focused on prioritizing and sequencing across the initiative portfolio can gain 40% more value than those that do not.
If you’re keen on achieving 40% more value across your change portfolio have a chat to us about how The Change Compass digital solution can help you do just this.
How to avoid performance dip during system implementation change initiatives
Here are some research findings from different articles on how to reduce performance dips during system implementation projects:
1. “Reducing Performance Dip During Implementation of Large-Scale Information Systems” by David Straub and James King (1996):
• Encourage and support employee participation in the implementation process.
• Provide adequate training and education on the new system.
• Communicate effectively with employees about the changes and their impact.
• Provide adequate technical support and resources.
• Establish clear and specific goals for the implementation process.
2. “Managing multiple change initiatives: the role of planning, sequencing, and implementation” by Jelena Spanjol and Susan Ashford (2018):
• Develop a comprehensive change management plan that includes communication, training, and support.
• Prioritize and sequence change initiatives to minimize disruption and avoid overload.
• Provide clear and consistent communication about the changes and their impact.
• Involve employees in the design and implementation process.
3. “A multi-level model of employee attitudes toward organizational change” by W. Matthew Bowler et al. (2010):
• Foster a positive attitude toward change by providing clear and consistent communication, support, and training.
• Encourage employee participation and involvement in the change process.
• Provide resources and tools to help employees adapt to the change.
• Monitor and address resistance to change.
• Recognize and reward employee efforts to adapt to the change.
4. “Reducing the Performance Impact of Software Upgrades” by Albert J. Simard and Lionel P. Robert Jr. (2004):
• Develop a comprehensive training program that focuses on the most relevant features of the new system.
• Provide ample opportunities for practice and feedback.
• Establish a clear and specific timeline for the implementation process.
• Communicate effectively with employees about the changes and their impact.
• Provide technical support and resources to address any issues that arise.
In conclusion, research suggests that organizations that use a combination of these change strategies are more likely to avoid performance dips during transformation programs at a portfolio level. By carefully managing and monitoring the portfolio of initiatives, providing appropriate training and support to employees, and continuously improving performance, organizations can ensure a successful transformation that delivers the desired benefits.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of today’s organizations, adaptability and agility have become more than just buzzwords; they are essential for survival and growth. The traditional approach of executing projects on an ad hoc basis is giving way to a strategic imperative—building change management maturity. This shift is not merely a choice but a compelling competitive advantage.
Recent statistics underscore the urgency of this change. According to a survey by Gitnux, more than 80% of businesses face increasing pressure to adapt to market forces, including technological advancements and evolving customer expectations. In this environment, mature organizations can respond swiftly to market dynamics and implement strategic initiatives with unparalleled precision and speed.
Two prominent models have emerged as guiding beacons in this transformative journey: the Change Management Institute (CMI) Change Maturity Model and Prosci’s Change Management Maturity Model. Both models are deeply entrenched in the concept of organizational competency levels, offering a structured framework comprising five progressive maturity levels.
In this article, we will embark on an enlightening journey, exploring the foundations of these two prominent change management maturity models, uncovering their intricacies, and paving the way for a more holistic approach to change management. Additionally, we will delve into the critical role of various organizational functions, shedding light on how they can actively contribute to the organization’s change maturity.
CMI Change Maturity Model
The Change Management Institute (CMI) Change Maturity Model is a comprehensive framework that takes a holistic approach to enhancing an organization’s change management maturity. It’s divided into three core functional domains, each playing a vital role in the overall journey toward maturity: Project Change Management, Business Change Readiness, and Strategic Change Leadership. These domains serve as the foundation for achieving higher levels of maturity within the organization.
Within each of these domains, the CMI model outlines a structured path, consisting of five distinct maturity levels. These levels represent a continuum, starting at Level 1, which serves as the foundational stage, and progressing all the way to Level 5, the zenith of maturity and effectiveness. This multi-tiered approach offers organizations a clear roadmap for growth and development, ensuring that they have the tools and insights necessary to navigate the complexities of change management.
The distinguishing feature of the CMI model is its emphasis on the idea that true change maturity extends beyond the realm of project execution. While executing individual projects is undoubtedly important, the CMI model advocates for a broader perspective. It recognizes that sustainable change maturity relies on the cultivation of readiness for change across the entire organization. This involves preparing teams, leaders, and employees to adapt to and embrace change seamlessly, making it an integral part of the organizational culture.
Furthermore, the CMI model underscores the indispensable role of change leadership and governance in nurturing change maturity. Effective leadership is the driving force behind successful change initiatives, and it’s the cornerstone of achieving higher levels of maturity. Governance structures ensure that change management practices are not just theoretical concepts but are woven into the fabric of how the organization operates on a day-to-day basis. Governance provides the necessary framework for sustaining change maturity in the long run.
Prosci Change Maturity Model
In contrast to the more specific functional domains emphasized by the CMI model, the Prosci Change Maturity Model takes a broader perspective, focusing on the development of overall organizational change management competency. Rather than zeroing in on individual functions, it provides a generic framework that covers key areas integral to building change maturity. These areas include:
Project Execution: The model places a strong emphasis on effective project execution as a cornerstone of change management maturity. It recognizes that the successful implementation of change initiatives hinges on well-executed projects, including detailed planning and efficient execution.
Business Capability and Readiness: Understanding the readiness and capability of the organization is another critical component. The Prosci model highlights the significance of assessing an organization’s readiness to undergo change, including the ability to adapt to new strategies, technologies, and processes.
Senior Change Leadership: Leadership is vital in steering the organization toward maturity. The model underlines the importance of senior change leadership, emphasizing that leaders play a pivotal role in setting the tone for change, championing initiatives, and fostering a culture of adaptability.
Formalized Practices and Organizational Awareness
One of the key drivers for elevating maturity, according to the Prosci model, is the establishment of formalized change management practices. This includes developing and implementing standardized methodologies to ensure consistent change management approaches across the organization. Furthermore, the model advocates for creating widespread organizational awareness about the significance of change management and its role in achieving successful outcomes.
The Role of Change Management Training
A cornerstone of the Prosci model’s approach to maturity is the incorporation of comprehensive change management training. This training equips individuals within the organization with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively manage change initiatives. It emphasizes the importance of investing in the development of internal change management expertise.
While both the CMI and Prosci models address the critical areas of project, business, and change leadership in driving change maturity, they diverge in their approaches. The CMI model offers a broader perspective, highlighting the importance of agility and continuous improvement as essential components of maturity. It places a strong emphasis on crafting the right cadence, establishing efficient business processes, and implementing robust governance practices. In contrast, the Prosci model, while equally comprehensive, provides less specific guidance on embedding change practices within the organization’s fabric and processes. Instead, it places a strong focus on the effective implementation of change initiatives.
What’s Missing in Current Change Maturity Models?
The lacuna in existing change maturity models becomes evident when we consider the need to genuinely embed change management principles and practices within an organization’s DNA. True integration transcends the mere execution of initiatives and building change capabilities among leaders and employees. It calls for collaboration across multifarious functions, including Risk Management, Marketing, Strategy, and Human Resources, to engrain change principles and practices. The focus is on holistic change capability, encompassing different functional areas. This approach fosters a culture where practices, capabilities, and supporting structures converge to enable continuous change.
In the following sections, we’ll explore examples of how change management principles and practices can be applied across seven key functions: Risk Management, Strategy and Planning, Operations, Project Management, Human Resources, Technology, and Marketing.
1. Risk Management
Change management principles and practices can enhance risk management by offering valuable insights into change-related risks. Risk professionals can leverage change management analytics to assess data-based risk factors, such as business readiness indicators and the potential impact of changes on the organization and its customers. Armed with this data, risk professionals can make informed assessments, helping the organization better understand risk profiles and make well-informed decisions.
2. Strategy and Planning
Strategic planning should not only focus on industry trends and financial data but also incorporate change capability assessments. Considerations should include the availability of change leadership talent, the organization’s capacity for executing change, and the historical performance related to change volume and velocity. The strategic roadmap should integrate historical data on change impact volumes and execution, enabling effective planning. Supporting structures and processes, including governance, reporting, and communities of practice, should be designed to ensure successful change execution.
3. Operations
Operations is a core domain for change management. This function offers numerous opportunities for applying change best practices. It involves building change management capabilities in employees and managers, enhancing employee engagement channels, and facilitating effective learning and development. With the right change data and analytics, Operations can strategically plan business delivery by making predictive assessments of performance based on projected change impacts. The key lies in systematically integrating analysis and decision-making processes within the operating cadence.
4. Project Management
This is the most familiar territory for change management. Many organizations have dedicated change managers responsible for project delivery. The conventional practices of change management, including capability building, change methodologies, portfolio management, and project delivery, are all part of the project management function.
5. Human Resources
Human Resources often plays a central role in supporting the people side of change. The function includes building change management capabilities as part of learning and development efforts. However, there’s substantial value in managing restructuring initiatives as change projects, and adhering to structured change management practices. This structured approach ensures that affected stakeholders are appropriately engaged, and processes, systems, and supporting structures impacted by change are meticulously mapped.
6. Technology
Change management is not limited to large projects; it extends to technology changes that impact stakeholders and users. Even smaller technology initiatives can benefit from the application of change management principles. Change management analytics can facilitate better technology releases and deployments. By considering change impact data, organizations can plan technical releases more effectively, taking into account organizational impacts.
7. Marketing and Customer Experience
Change management practices can play a pivotal role in marketing and customer experience functions. Customer change impacts, such as external positioning and alignment with customer needs, should be integral to marketing campaigns, product launches, and communications. These practices, including impact assessment, change analytics, and change planning, enable organizations to deliver what they promise to customers.
In closing, the true value of change maturity emerges when it becomes a part of various organizational functions. It’s not just about developing isolated methodologies or supporting initiative delivery; it’s about becoming an organization where change is seamlessly integrated into every facet.
Ready to Elevate Your Change Maturity?
The journey to achieving a higher level of change maturity begins with holistic integration within your organization. If you’re interested in exploring how The Change Compass can help you in this transformative process, we invite you to book a weekly demo with us.
How can understanding the change adoption curve benefit organizations?
Understanding the change adoption curve benefits organizations by identifying how different individuals or groups respond to change. By recognizing these stages—innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards—companies can tailor their strategies to enhance communication, support, and ultimately improve the success of change initiatives.
Measuring change adoption is one of the most important parts of the work of change practitioners. It is the ultimate ‘proof’ of whether the change interventions have been successful or not in achieving the initiative objectives. It is also an important way in which the progress of change management can clearly be shown to the project team as well as to various stakeholder groups. The ability to show clearly the progress of change outcome is critical to focus your stakeholders’ actions on the right areas. It is one of the key ways to ‘prove your worth’ as a change practitioner.
Measurement takes time, focus and effort. It may not be something that is a quick exercise. There needs to be precise data measurement design, a reliable way of collecting data, and data visualisation that is easily understood by stakeholders.
With the right measurements of change adoption, you can influence the direction of the initiative, create impetus amongst senior stakeholders, and steer the organisation toward a common goal to realise the change objectives. Such is the power of measuring change adoption.
The myth of the change management curve
One of the most popular graphs in change management, and often referred to as the ‘change curve’, is the Kubler-Ross model that outlines the stages of personal transition. The model was specifically designed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross to refer to terminally ill patients as a part of the book ‘On Death and Dying’. For whatever reason, it has somehow gained popularity and application in change management, making it crucial to be very careful when applying this model to address potential adoption barriers in a change context.
There is little research evidence to back this up even in psychological research. When applied in change management, there is no known research that supports this at all. So be careful when you come across models such as this one that is simple and seem intuitively ‘correct’, as they may overlook stakeholders’ voices and input, which can lead to new ideas. On the other hand, there is ample research by McKinsey that shows the best way for effectively managed initiatives and transformations is that stakeholders do not go through this ‘valley of death’ journey at all.
If the ‘change curve’ is not the correct chart to follow with regard to change adoption, then what is the right one to refer to? Good question.
The ‘S’ curve of change adoption is one that can be referenced. It is well backed in terms of research from technology and new product adoption. It begins with a typically slow start followed by a significant climb in adoption followed by a flattened level at the end. Most users typically do not uptake the change until later on.
Here is an example of key technologies and the speed of adoption in U.S. households since the 1900s.
With the different types of change contexts, the shape of the S curve will be expected to differ as a result. For example, you are working on a fairly minor process change where there is not a big leap in going from the current process to the new process. In this case, the curve would be expected to be a lot more gentle since the complexity of the change is significantly less than adopting a complex, new technology.
On the other hand, if you are working on many iterative agile changes, each iteration that impacts users may be a small S curve in themselves. Ideally, each iteration work together towards a greater piece of overarching change.
Going beyond what is typically measured
Most change practitioners are focused on measuring the easier and more obvious measures such as stakeholder perceptions, change readiness, and training completion. Whilst these are of value, they in themselves are only measuring certain aspects of the change process. They can be viewed as forward-looking indications of the progress that supports moving toward eventual change adoption, versus the eventual change adoption.
To really address head-on the topic of measuring adoption of new products, it is critical to go beyond these initial measures toward those elements that indicate the actual change in the organisation, especially focusing on early adopters. Depending on the type of change this could be system usage, behaviour change, following a new process or achieving cost savings targets.
Project Benefit realization
It goes without saying that to really measure change adoption the change practitioner must work closely with the project manager to understand in detail the benefits targeted, and how the prescribed benefits will be measured. The project manager could utilise a range of ways to articulate the benefits of the project. Common benefit categories include:
Business success factors such as financial targets on revenue or cost
Product integration measures such as usage rate
Market objectives such as revenue target, user base, etc.
These categories above are objectives that are easier to measure and tangible to quantify. However, there could also be less tangible targets such as:
Competitive positioning
Employee relations
Employee experience
There could be various economic methods of determining the targeted benefit objectives. These include payback time or the length of time from project initiation until the cumulative cash flow becomes positive, or net present value, or internal rate of return on a new tool.
Employee capability
Customer experience
There could be various economic methods of determining the targeted benefit objectives. These include payback time or the length of time from project initiation until the cumulative cash flow becomes positive, or net present value, or internal rate of return.
The critical aspect for change practitioners is to understand what the benefit objectives are, how benefit tracking will be measured and to interpret what steps are required to get there. These steps include any change management steps required to get from the current state to the future state.
Here is an example of a mapping of change management steps required in different benefit targets:
Increased customer satisfaction and improved productivity through implementing a new system. | Users able to operate the new system.Users able to improve customer conversations leveraging new system features.Users proactively use the new system features to drive improved customer conversations.Managers coaching and provide feedback to usersBenefit tracking and communications.Customer communication about improved system and processesDecreased customer call waiting time . | % of users passed training test.System feature usage rate.Customer issue resolution time.User feedback on manager coaching.Monthly benefit tracking shared and discussed in team meetings.Customer satisfaction rate. Customer call volume handling capacity.
Measuring behavioural change
For most change initiatives, there is an element of behaviour change, especially for more complex changes. Whether the change involves a system implementation, changing a process or launching a new product, behaviour change is involved. In a system implementation context, the behaviour may be different ways of operating the system in performing their roles. For a process change, there may be different operating steps which need to take place that defers from the previous steps. The focus on behaviour change aims to zoom in on core behaviours that need to change to lead to the initiative outcome being achieved.
How do we identify these behaviours in a meaningful way so that they can be identified, described, modelled, and measured?
The following are tips for identifying the right behaviours to measure:
Behaviours should be observable. They are not thoughts or attitudes, so behaviours need to be observable by others
Aim to target the right level of behaviour. Behaviours should not be so minute that they are too tedious to measure, e.g. click a button in a system. They also should not be so broad that it is hard to measure them overall, e.g. proactively understand customer concerns vs. what is more tangible such as asked questions about customer needs in XXX areas during customer interactions.
Behaviours are usually exhibited after some kind of ‘trigger’, for example, when the customer agent hear certain words such as ‘not happy’ or ‘would like to report’ from the customer that they may need to treat this as a customer complaint by following the new customer complaint process. Identifying these triggers will help you measure those behaviours.
Achieve a balance by not measuring too many behaviours since this will create additional work for the project team. However, ensure a sufficient number of behaviours are measured to assess benefit realisation
Measuring micro-behaviours
Behaviour change can seem over-encompassing and elusive. However, it may not need to be this. Rather than focusing on a wide set of behaviours that may take a significant period of time to sift, focusing on ‘micro-behaviours’ can be more practical and measurable. Micro-behaviours are simply small observable behaviours that are small step-stone behaviours vs a cluster of behaviours.
For example, a typical behaviour change for customer service reps may be to improve customer experience or to establish customer rapport. However, breaking these broad behaviours down into small specific behaviours may be much easier to target and achieve results.
For example, micro-behaviours to improve customer rapport may include:
User the customer’s name, “Is it OK if I call you Michelle?”
Build initial rapport, “How has your day been?”
Reflect on the customer’s feeling, “I’m hearing that it must have been frustrating”
Agree on next steps, “would it help if I escalate this issue for you?”
Each of these micro-behaviours may be measured using call-listening ratings and may either be a yes/no or a rating based assessment.
After having designed the right measurement to measure your change adoption, the next step would be to design the right reporting process. Key considerations in planning and executing on the reporting process includes:
Ease of reporting, you should aim to automate where possible to reduce the overhead burden and manual work involved. Whenever feasible leverage automation tools and in-app options to move fast and not be bogged down by tedious work
Build expectations on contribution to measurement. Rally your stakeholder support so that it is clear the data contribution required to measure and track change adoption
Design eye-catching and easy to understand dashboard of change adoption metrics.
Design reinforcing mechanisms. If your measurement requires people’s input, ensure you design the right reinforcing mechanisms to ensure you get the data you are seeking for. Human nature is so that whenever possible, people would err on the side of not contributing to a survey unless there are explicit consequences of not filling out the survey.
Recipients of change adoption measurement. Think about the distribution list of those who should receive the measurement tracking. This includes not just those who are in charge of realising the benefits (i.e. business leaders), but also those who contribute to the adoption process, e.g. middle or first-line managers.
Example of change adoption dashboard from Change Automator
Measuring Adoption Across Initiatives
You may be driving multiple initiatives as a part of a large program or a portfolio of initiatives. The key challenge here is to establish common adoption measures that are apple-to-apple metrics comparisons across initiatives. Yes, each initiatives will most likely have different sets of what constitutes adoption. However, there are still common ways to report on adoption across initiatives such as overall percentage of adoption of identified adoption elements, or percentage of the number of milestones reached. You can also utilise manager reports of behaviours adopted, as well as system records of utilisation of certain features for example.
Understanding change adoption is not only helpful to understand what works for one initiative, it can also be a linchpin to help you scale change adoption across change initiatives across your whole portfolio. Talk to us to find out more about how The Change Compass, a digital adoption platform, can help you understand what change interventions lead to higher change adoption rates in the flow of work, through data. Using a data-led approach in deciphering what drives change adoption can truly drive successful change outcomes.
In the world of scaled agile, “Release on Demand” is a concept that has profound implications for agile teams and their project approaches. It guides teams on how to release and deliver value when stakeholders and customers are truly ready to receive it. However, a crucial, often-overlooked factor in this concept is the role of change management. While Release on Demand has primarily been framed as a technical approach within the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), the readiness of people—including end-users, stakeholders, customers, and partners—forms an equally vital part of determining the demand for release.
As change management practitioners, understanding and actively shaping “Release on Demand” can significantly impact project outcomes. In this article, we’ll explore how change management can enhance this core SAFe concept through strategic timing, prioritisation, and thoughtful execution of each release. We’ll also discuss how to structure governance cadences to ensure operational and people readiness, going beyond the technical lens.
Understanding Release on Demand in SAFe
Within SAFe, Release on Demand means that project outputs or new functionality are delivered when the organisation, teams, and stakeholders are ready to adopt and benefit from it. It enables flexible delivery rather than a rigid release schedule. The four key activities for Release on Demand are:
Release – Delivering the product or change to users.
Stabilise and Operate – Ensuring the release is operationally sound and running smoothly.
Measure and Learn – Assessing the release’s impact and learning from the results.
Adjust – Making necessary improvements based on insights gained.
The goal of these activities is to minimise risk, gather user feedback, and optimise the release to maximise impact. While these steps seem straightforward, they demand thoughtful change management to ensure all stakeholders are prepared to support, use, and benefit from the release. Let’s delve deeper into how a change management approach can strengthen each of these activities.
People Readiness as the Core Demand Factor
The “demand” for a release is often misunderstood as being purely about project or market readiness. However, the reality is that it depends on multiple factors, including how ready people are to adopt the change. For any release to succeed, people readiness is crucial and requires focus on:
End-User Readiness: Ensuring that end-users are prepared for the new tools, processes, or functionalities. This could mean conducting user training, crafting support resources, and managing expectations.
Stakeholder Readiness: Stakeholders at all levels need to understand the change, its rationale, and its anticipated impact. This may involve regular briefings, updates, and even individual consultations.
Customer and Partner Readiness: For customer-facing or partner-facing releases, it’s essential to gauge external readiness as well. A clear communication plan and alignment of goals with partners or clients can smooth the path for a successful launch.
These readiness efforts form a significant part of the “demand” in Release on Demand and reflect the reality that people’s capacity to adapt often determines when a release will be genuinely effective.
The Broader Change Landscape
People readiness isn’t only determined by a single project or team but by the broader change landscape within an organisation. Multiple changes or ongoing initiatives can either enhance or inhibit readiness for a new release. For instance, if an organisation is already undergoing a significant digital transformation, adding another change may lead to overload and resistance.
Change practitioners should map the change landscape to identify concurrent changes and evaluate how these may impact readiness for Release on Demand. By assessing the timing and impact of other changes, change managers can:
Avoid change fatigue by spacing out initiatives.
Synchronize related changes to reduce redundancy.
Communicate the overall strategic direction to help stakeholders and users understand how individual changes fit into the bigger picture.
By accounting for these interdependencies, change management can improve people readiness and ensure the Release on Demand aligns with the organisation’s capacity to handle it.
Applying the Four Key Steps in Release on Demand
Let’s explore how change management activities can amplify each of the four Release on Demand steps:
1. Release: The release phase requires both technical and people preparation. Beyond deploying the technical elements, change management practitioners should:
Develop targeted communication plans to inform all affected stakeholders.
Offer targeted training sessions or resources that build users’ confidence and competence.
Ensure adequate support is in place for the transition, including help desks or peer mentoring.
2. Stabilise and Operate: After a release, it’s crucial to monitor adoption and support operational stability. The change team can:
Collect feedback from end-users and support staff on initial challenges and address these promptly.
Identify and celebrate quick wins that demonstrate the release’s value.
Work closely with operations teams to resolve any unforeseen issues that may inhibit adoption or cause frustration.
3. Measure and Learn: This step goes beyond tracking technical metrics and should also capture change-specific insights. Change management can contribute by:
Conducting surveys, interviews, or focus groups to gauge user and stakeholder sentiment.
Monitoring adoption rates and identifying any training gaps or knowledge shortfalls.
Collaborating with product or project teams to share insights that may refine or prioritisation subsequent releases.
4. Adjust: Based on insights gained from the Measure and Learn phase, change managers can advise on necessary adjustments. These might include:
Refining future communication and training plans based on user feedback.
Addressing any gaps in stakeholder support or sponsorship.
Adjusting the timing of subsequent releases to better align with people readiness.
The iterative nature of these four steps aligns well with agile methodologies, allowing change managers to continuously refine and enhance their approach.
The Critical Role of Sequencing, Prioritisation, and Timing
FFor change management practitioners, Release on Demand isn’t just about executing steps—it’s about doing so in the right sequence and at the right time. The impact of a release depends significantly on when it occurs, who is prepared for it, and how well each group’s readiness aligns with the release cadence and continuous integration.
Here are some tips to help change managers get the timing right:
Analyze stakeholder engagement levels: Regularly assess how engaged and ready stakeholders are, tailoring messaging and interventions based on their feedback and sentiment.
Prioritisation change activities based on impact: Not all releases will have the same impact, so change teams should focus resources on those that require the most user readiness efforts.
Create phased rollouts: If full-scale readiness across the board isn’t achievable, a phased rollout can provide users with time to adapt, while allowing the change team to address any emergent issues in stages.
By managing the release cadence thoughtfully, change managers can avoid the disruptions caused by hasty releases and ensure the deployment feels both manageable and meaningful for users.
Release governance in SAFe is often perceived as a predominantly technical or project-focused process. However, effective governance should encompass business operations and people readiness as well. Change management plays a pivotal role in designing governance cadences that account for these critical aspects.
To integrate change governance within release governance, change practitioners should:
Establish clear communication channels with project teams and product owners to ensure people readiness factors are consistently part of release discussions.
Implement a readiness checklist that includes technical, operational, and people readiness criteria. This checklist should be reviewed and signed off by relevant stakeholders before any release.
Maintain a cadence of review and feedback sessions where project teams, change managers, and stakeholders discuss readiness progress, key risks, and post-release outcomes.
This approach ensures that each release is evaluated from multiple perspectives, minimising disruption and maximising its potential for success.
The above is from Scaledagileframework.com
Developing a Change Cadence that Complements Agile Delivery
SAFe’s principle of “develop on cadence; release on demand” is central to effective agile delivery. For change management practitioners, developing a strong change cadence is equally important. This cadence, or rhythm of activities, aligns with the agile teams’ development cadence and helps build stakeholder momentum, maintain engagement, and reduce surprises.
Here’s how to develop a cadence that works in tandem with agile teams:
Planning Cadence: Hold regular planning sessions to align change activities with upcoming releases and identify readiness gaps. This could be quarterly for major releases or bi-weekly for smaller, iterative releases.
Execution Cadence: Establish a reliable cycle for change interventions, such as training, communication, and stakeholder meetings. This cadence helps stakeholders build expectations and fosters a predictable rhythm in change activities.
Feedback Cadence: Collect feedback at consistent intervals, aligning it with release intervals or sprint reviews. Consistent feedback keeps the change process agile and responsive to evolving needs.
A well-defined change cadence not only prepares users effectively but also reinforces trust and transparency in the change process.
Release on Demand may have originated as a technical concept within SAFe, but its success is deeply tied to how well people, stakeholders, and users are prepared for each release. For change management practitioners, Release on Demand is an opportunity to enhance the broader release process by prioritizing people readiness, orchestrating thoughtful sequencing, and establishing governance that prioritisations user success as much as project outcomes.
By proactively engaging in each of the four stages of Release on Demand—Release, Stabilise and Operate, Measure and Learn, and Adjust—change management can ensure releases are not just technically ready but fully integrated into the people and business context they serve. Embracing this role allows change managers to become essential partners in agile delivery, maximising the impact of each release for end-users, the organisation, and the overall success of the project.
Change heatmaps are one of the most commonly used charts when making business decisions on whether there is too much change or not. Yes there are some advantages of using heatmap. However, there are also lots of strong reasons why you should not use change heatmaps, at least solely. Let’s examine some of these reasons and tear apart some of the strong risks of relying on heatmaps to make change planning decisions.
How do you create an effective change management heat map?
To create an effective change managementheat map, identify key areas of impact and categorize them based on urgency and importance, including various impact levels. Use a color-coding system to visually represent data, ensuring stakeholders can quickly assess risk levels. Regularly update the map to reflect changes and maintain alignment with organizational goals.
What are some of the common ways of using heatmaps? A lot of organisations use change heat maps to represent how much change there is impacting different parts of the business. There are various versions of this. However, the most common way to depict this is to provide leadership teams with a list of each project against different parts of the business and show the heat levels. This is the less popular format because each project has varying levels of heat and to aggregate the heat level into one singular cell is not a good representation of the stakeholder impact experience.
The more popular way is to plot out the heat levels of different business units across time, employing a gradient scale, with each cell showing heat levels. This is better able to depict how different business units will be experiencing different levels of change across time across the delivery of all projects. The below is one example of a heatmap.
What are some of the advantages of using change heatmaps?
Easy to understand
A lot of stakeholders like this format because it is easier to understand. The deeper the colour is the more ‘change heat level’ there is. Simple! Most stakeholders can intuitively interpret the data without needing explanation.
Visually appealing
People like looking at colourful charts and the heatmap is colourful. Let’s face it … no one likes looking at a series of boring, stale charts that are monotone in colour. Right?
Familiar
Most stakeholders are used to the traffic light view of change heatmaps. In most project settings, the red, amber, green indication of different heat levels are well understood to depict varying levels of high performance heat within a change setting.
However, there is a long list of strong reasons why you should not rely on change heatmaps … or at least not purely.
Why should we not use the change heatmap?
The traffic light method of depicting different volumes of change is misleading.
Firstly, having only 3 categories of different categories of change volume is not adequate within organisations that have lots of change. In practice, if we only use red, amber and green to depicts all varying levels of change then a lot of the time the colours will remain the same, even when there is significant varying levels. So, clearly the variation depicted within 3 colours is much too limiting.
The traffic light method of depicting change is subject to psychological bias
Yes stakeholders are familiar with interpreting traffic light indications. However, within the project context stakeholders interpret green as good, red as alert/bad, and amber as be careful or keep watching. This is absolutely not the right message when interpreting the heatmap.
Each colour should show purely the level of change impact, and not if the change is good or bad. Therefore, at The Change Compass we have stopped using the traffic light system of indicating change heatmap. Instead, we use different shade of the same colour so that the user purely focuses on the colour levels, and not additional psychological biases. Here is an example.
The heatmap is very categorical
Whether using 3 levels of 5 levels of colours is categorical by definition. We are categorising the varying levels of change into one of these categories. So, by definition the heatmap cannot be granular. It is only designed to provide a high level and broad-sweeping view of change volume. To get a more granular view other charts should be used instead that depict exact volume of the impact within a point in time. For example, a bar chart. Here is one example.
Some of the best reasons not to use heatmaps are due to significant risk
What are these risks?
Risk of personal judgment in deriving heatmaps
A common way to put together change heatmaps is to use ‘personal judgment’ to rate the change impact of projects across time and across business units. This is an easier and faster way to generate heatmaps. However, because the rating is highly subjective, you will easily get challenged by your stakeholders. It may be a rabbit-hole within a stakeholder meeting that you would not want to go down.
Comparing across business units
When stakeholders read a change heatmap the natural tendency is to compare the heat levels across different business units. Department A has more change than department B. It is human nature. However, what the heatmap does not communicate is the varying levels of perceived change saturation across different business units.
Change saturation is affected by varying factors such as leadership quality and change maturity. Therefore, different business units will have different levels of susceptibility for change saturation. The same change volume can be perceived as having exceeded saturation in one business unit. However, for another business unit the same change level can be easily handled and consumed.
So, comparing change volumes across business units needs to be done carefully with the premise that this cannot necessarily be an apple-to-apple comparison.
Isolating the hotspots
Most companies present heatmaps at business unit levels. However, this may not be sufficient because in some cases this may be too broad of a view. It could be that on the surface one business unit has the most volume of change. But maybe its not the whole business unit. It could be just one team that is going to shoulder the bulk of the change volume, versus the whole business unit. Therefore, the ability to drill down and examine which section and which layer of the organisation is most impacted is critical.
Drilling down to find out where the hostpots are is not just a factor of which part of the business unit. It could also be the stakeholder group or type of roles impacted. It could be that only the frontlines are impacted versus the whole business unit. Or that only team managers are impacted, and not so much the frontline teams.
The other factors to examine also include the location of the teams impacted. Are certain locations more impacted than others? Are certain project activities impacting employees more than others? For example, are most employees needing to take time away from their day jobs because of the amount of training required?
Different types of people impacts
Employee heatmaps are mostly what change practioners spend their time on producing. However, there could also be impacts on customers. A lot of organisations are very forth-coming to call out that ‘customer is their number one focus’. However, is there a clear picture of what are all the various customer impacts resulting from change initiatives? There could also be impacts on partners and suppliers that work with the organisation to produce the products and services. Their impacts could also be critical in managing and planning for change.
Does not take into account change velocity
Change heatmaps typically focus on volumes of change. However, this is not the only perspective that needs to be considered. What about the speed in which change is going to be implemented? Will the change feel fast or slow? Is there a lot of change to be implemented within a short period of time? Clearly, having a way to depict the velocity of change can also be a very insightful lense in addition to just the focus on volume.
Teams that may be less change mature could struggle with a fast pace of organizational change if they have not had the previous experience nor the change capability in place. Does the team have the capacity to undergo rapid and fast moving change? Do they have the operating rhythms in place to support this velocity? Having a view to the velocity of change may provide guidance in terms of what business readiness needs to be in place to prepare for change. The below is an example of measuring the comparative speed of change from The Change Compass.
So, in summary you can see that there is more to understanding and planning for change than to rely solely on the change heatmap. Change is multidimensional. Simply using one view to depict it may not be sufficient. The key is to use it to provide a broad high level understanding and then drill down into other change data to understand what the story is and what the risks are the organisation, and to adjust their change strategies accordingly.
Being clear with what the story-line is will help you to determine what data to present to your stakeholders. If you are purely focused on driving discussion on whether to delay the roll out of certain projects due to limited business capacity of a particular business unit, then a bar chart may be more useful. If you are wanting to portray the impacted volume of certain roles, then a line chart portraying the volume of change that these roles will be facing into over time is a better option.
If you are finding it too complicated or manual to derive various change data visualisation or charts, have a chat to us. Digital is the way to go for organisations that would like to become more digital. Businesses are putting their weight on digitising as many parts of the operation as possible, and data collection, including insights from focus groups, is crucial in this process. Change also needs to catch up and digitise itself. This does not mean being data-centric at the expense of the ‘softer side of change’. It means using data to be more impactful and have better conversations to portray what will happen to the organisation and being able to call out critical risks, with adequate confidence.
