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.
What are some of the common ways of using heatmaps? A lot of organisations use change heatmaps 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 either to list 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, 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 setting, the red, amber, green indication of different heat levels are well understood to depict varying levels of 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 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.
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. Business are putting their weight on digising as many parts of the operation as possible. 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.
Captured during a 5-day trek in Tasmania’s southwestern wilderness known as the Western Arthurs, this photograph reflects a journey undertaken four years prior, just before devastating bushfires swept through Tasmania, altering its pristine landscapes. The region, notorious for persistent rain and limited sunshine, graced us with consecutive sunlit days, making it a standout global hiking experience, rivaling trails in the Italian Dolomites, the Himalayas, and the Canadian Rockies.
Embarking on a 5-day expedition in Tasmania’s southwest demands self-sufficiency—carrying all your food, drinking from rivers, and sleeping in a tent with no huts or running water. The solitude is profound, with few fellow hikers; most of the time, it’s just you and Mother Nature.
Childhood lessons painted Mother Nature as a battlefield for survival, where each tree competes fiercely for sunlight, nutrients, and dominance over the land. However, this narrative is challenged by Suzanne Simard, a professor of forest ecology at the University of British Columbia. Over two decades of study revealed that a forest’s essence lies not in individual tree struggles but in subterranean partnerships. Simard unveiled the symbiotic relationship between trees and fungi, known as mycorrhizas—thread-like fungi merging with tree roots. They aid trees in extracting water and nutrients, receiving carbon-rich sugars produced through photosynthesis in return. (For more details, refer to the New York Times article.)
Mycorrhizas serve as the connective tissue of the forest, intertwining trees of different species through an extensive web. This transforms the forest into more than a mere collection of trees. In times of crisis, a tree at the brink of death may altruistically share a substantial portion of its carbon with neighboring trees. The forest thus emphasizes cooperation, negotiation, reciprocity, and selflessness alongside survival and competition.
Remarkably, this ecosystem mirrors the principles of effective change networks. A change network possesses the capacity to reach every individual in a company. Unlike being confined to a specific business unit or hierarchy level, a well-designed change network transcends organizational boundaries.
Let’s delve deeper into the characteristics of a robust and efficient change network…
1) Project-agnostic
In the dynamic landscape of change networks, a paradigm shift from the traditional project-specific model to a project-agnostic approach emerges as a strategic imperative. The conventional methodology, with its exclusive focus on single projects, often results in a staggering 69% of projects achieving initial objectives, while 15% are considered failures. This project-specific model, besides its high failure rate, also contributes to significant resource wastage. Identifying, training, and sustaining a robust change champion network for each project frequently overshoots the project’s lifecycle, hindering desired outcomes and accounting for the 70% failure rate in projects.
Contrastingly, a more efficient paradigm involves nurturing change champions with the ability to support multiple projects. This not only optimizes resource allocation but also aligns with the agile principle, as highlighted by the 56% of companies that exclusively use a single project management methodology.
These versatile change champions, akin to Starbucks’ “My Starbucks Idea” initiative, play a pivotal role in connecting the dots across projects, providing invaluable insights, and fostering a culture of collaboration. Starbucks’ successful implementation of change through customer-driven ideas, resulting in over 5 million monthly page visits, is a testament to the power of adaptable change networks.
Drawing a parallel to the natural world, where mycorrhizas take time to strengthen and fortify the forest, change champions undergo a transformative journey with each project involvement. Their sustained engagement refines their change management skills and delivery expertise, enhancing their proficiency with every endeavor.
The diverse and creative approaches observed in change champions, ranging from themed outfits to innovative reminders, reflect the adaptability crucial for effective end-user engagement. This adaptability serves as the cornerstone of a thriving change champion network, where experimentation and varied strategies contribute to its vibrancy and success. Similar to the ever-evolving forest ecosystem, change networks flourish when nurtured with creativity and adaptability.
2) Cuts across layers
In the realm of change networks, adopting a project-agnostic approach emerges as a strategic shift from the traditional project-specific model. The conventional method involves forming change networks tailored exclusively to a single project, with champions disbanded at the project’s conclusion.
However, this model poses inherent challenges, leading to significant resource wastage. The effort to identify, train, and sustain a robust change champion network for each project often exceeds the project’s lifespan, impeding desired outcomes.
To address this, the change champion network needs to cut across not only different parts of the business but also different layers of the organization. A lot of change champion networks are designed at the mid-layer of the organization, typically involving middle managers. While middle managers can influence the outcome of the change more than frontline staff members, relying solely on this layer may not be sufficient.
Here’s why:
Detail Feedback: Middle managers are often not the ‘end users’ of systems or processes, making it challenging for them to provide detailed feedback on the suitability of the change, sentiments of end users, or necessary adjustments in the change solution.
Signal Loss: Depending on the organization, there may be 1-3 layers between middle managers and end users, resulting in potential ‘signal loss’ where thoughts, emotions, and feedback from the lowest layers of the organization may not be effectively communicated.
Limited Testing Input: Middle managers are usually not directly involved in system or process testing, limiting their ability to provide detailed input to shape the change. Their contributions often focus on higher-level strategies for engaging impacted teams.
To build a strong, vibrant, and extensive change champion network, engagement needs to extend to different layers of the organization, not just the middle layers but also the lower layers. While top layers may be engaged through various committees, middle and lower layers require dedicated change champions.
Similar to the mycorrhizas connecting different trees in a forest, the change champion network, when stronger and more extensive, becomes more capable of influencing and driving change both vertically and horizontally across the company. This inclusivity ensures that smaller business groups are not neglected or deprioritized, contributing to the overall success and adaptability of the change network.
3) Routine interfaces
In the intricate ecosystem of a forest, mycorrhizas play a vital role by providing essential sustenance, and supplying critical nitrogen, water, and other nutrients to plants. In the organizational landscape, change champions serve a similar crucial function. Armed with comprehensive knowledge and a deep understanding of the change, along with the latest updates on its impacts, they possess the ability to interpret messages in a way that resonates with those directly affected, using a language that is tailored to each team’s unique history, priorities, and culture.
Unlike program-level communication, which may be too generalized, the interaction with change champions is a dynamic, two-way process. They engage with impacted employees, actively assessing and understanding where individuals stand in their change journey. This engagement leads to a clear comprehension of the specific communication, learning, or leadership support needs of impacted teams. High-performing change champions delve beyond the surface, understanding the motivations and demotivators of the teams they serve. This wealth of insights becomes a powerful set of messages that can be fed back to the central project mothership.
What sets high-performing change champions apart is not just their ability to communicate and collect feedback; they proactively sense-check and virtually “walk the floor” to feel the pulse of the employees. Often, change champions are directly impacted by themselves, fostering a natural empathy that enables them to connect with others undergoing change. In this dynamic, there is a delicate balance between self-interest and selflessness, as change champions strive not only to navigate their own challenges but also to extend support and assistance to those in need. This nuanced approach mirrors the harmony found in natural ecosystems, where organisms cooperate for mutual benefit.
4) Cross-network collaboration
Within the expansive framework of an extensive change network, diverse sub-teams of change champions naturally emerge, often organized by business units or grade levels. While connecting with peers within the same level might be straightforward, establishing collaboration across hierarchies, especially with those perceived as ‘managers,’ can pose challenges.
To overcome these challenges, intentional routines must be established to facilitate frequent sharing and collaboration among different change champion teams. In the natural world, trees emit chemical alarm signals to warn nearby trees of potential danger. Similarly, within a business context, a team from one business unit may sense a looming risk for change failure based on their experiences, which they can share with other teams yet to undergo the change.
Conversely, successful experiments in one part of the business should be readily proliferated in other areas of the organization. For instance, in a large insurance company, a change champion network recognized the need for frontline staff working virtually to have a platform for immediate queries and responses. The solution was a chat channel implemented under Microsoft Teams, approved by IT. In this channel, frontline staff could freely pose questions about system usage, shortcuts, and outages, and addressing customer concerns.
Initially, the channel had few questions, but as prompt and helpful responses were provided, engagement grew. Today, it stands as one of the most active Teams chat channels in the company, showcasing the effectiveness of cross-network collaboration. This success story has inspired similar initiatives in other businesses, emphasizing the ripple effect of successful collaboration practices within change networks.
5) Nurturing the network
Sustaining a change champion network is an ongoing endeavor that demands continuous nurturing, engagement, support, and leadership. Similar to any community, these networks thrive when provided with the right conditions and resources. Several key activities contribute to the nurturing of a dynamic and effective change champion network:
Onboarding and Expectation Setting: New members need comprehensive onboarding sessions where they receive information about the network’s objectives, core principles, expected time commitments, and other essential details.
Change Capability Sessions: Continuous learning is crucial for change champions. Sessions covering various topics, such as impact assessment, change communication, feedback provision during testing, and engagement with impacted stakeholder groups, help enhance their skills.
Leader Support: The involvement of senior leaders in certain sessions can provide valuable support and visibility to the network’s efforts, emphasizing the importance of their work in the broader organizational context.
Cross-Business Unit Networking: Structured agendas for cross-business unit change champion networking sessions create opportunities for sharing ideas and best practices, fostering a collaborative environment.
Routine Forums: Establishing routine forums for discussing project-specific topics allows members to stay informed and aligned with ongoing initiatives.
Formal Acknowledgments and Prizes: Recognizing key milestones and achievements through formal acknowledgments and prizes not only celebrates success but also motivates members to actively contribute.
Data Access: Providing change champions with access to change data, including impact assessments, readiness metrics, and change roadmaps, empowers them with valuable insights into upcoming changes and their stakeholder implications.
Regular Membership Reviews: Like any dynamic network, regular reviews of membership are essential. Some members may not meet expectations, and their roles might need to be filled by others. Expecting turnover and proactively managing it ensures a continuous influx of fresh perspectives and contributions.
Change champions, armed with comprehensive data on change impact, play a pivotal role in facilitating a clear understanding of impending changes and their ramifications for stakeholders. Regular reinforcement, support, and occasional challenges contribute to the resilience and effectiveness of the change champion network.
6) Supporting multiple initiatives
In the dynamic landscape of organizational change, it’s common for each business unit to undergo multiple initiatives simultaneously. Change champions play a pivotal role in navigating this complex terrain, supporting various initiatives and connecting the dots to form a coherent narrative for the impacted audience. Here’s why having change champions who can support multiple initiatives is crucial:
Holistic Understanding: Change champions, acting as the linchpin between different initiatives, provide a holistic understanding of the changes unfolding within a business unit. This comprehensive view enables them to craft a cohesive story that resonates with the audience, fostering better comprehension and buy-in.
Connecting the Dots: A key function of change champions is to connect disparate initiatives into a unified narrative. By highlighting interdependencies and common goals, they contribute to a more seamless and integrated change experience for stakeholders.
Predicting Crunch Periods: Change champions need to anticipate and understand the crunch periods for their business unit. By supporting multiple initiatives, they become adept at forecasting when the organization might face heightened challenges and risks that could impact daily operations.
Strategic Risk Management: With insights into multiple initiatives, change champions become strategic risk managers. They can identify potential points of friction, overlaps, or resource constraints and proactively address them, mitigating risks that could hinder the success of the initiatives.
Example of a single view of change from The Change Compass
Example of Change Outcome: The Change Compass
In analogy to mycorrhizal networks that span diverse ecosystems, organizations face the challenge of not only developing robust change champion networks internally but also fostering connections with external networks. Just as mycorrhizal networks link various landscapes, change champion networks can extend their impact beyond organizational boundaries.
Research indicates that when change champion networks from different companies link up, a wealth of learning and collaboration unfolds. This interconnectedness leads to a blossoming of reciprocity, negotiation, and even selflessness. Organizations stand to gain immensely by facilitating the exchange of insights and experiences among diverse change champion networks, creating a thriving ecosystem of change management knowledge and practices.
Elevate your change management strategy! Book a weekly demo with us and explore how our solutions can empower your change champion network.
This is the 2nd benchmarking report on change practices across the globe. In this exclusive benchmarking study we focused on a small select group of organisations across multiple industries across the globe to understand their organisational change practices. We compare the results of this study versus that carried out 2 years ago to examine any trends in organisational practices.
The key topics we benchmarked in this study include:
1. Change analytics – How organisations use change data to support their change work
2. Business change capability – How organisations go about building and developing change capability
3. Change portfolio management – How organisations manage a set of change initiatives
4. Project delivery – How organisations support project delivery from a change management perspective.
Leveraging a tool such as The Change Compass is not just about data entry and interpreting data. It is about building organisational capability in managing change. This means that business stakeholders needs to be engaged, coached and supported to be able to leverage change data to make operations decisions. This also means that other stakeholders such as the PMO (project management office) and senior managers are also to use change data for planning purposes.
To find out more about how to structure the approach for leveraging the value from a change tool such as The Change Compass click the following link to download the infographic.
