Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) has emerged as a leading methodology to address the organisational change demands of fostering flexibility, collaboration, and continuous improvement. A cornerstone of SAFe is the principle of ‘Measure and Grow,’ which emphasizes using data and fact-based decisions to enhance change outcomes over time, including predictability. Despite its centrality, SAFe does not explicitly detail the change management components essential for its success, including its deep understanding of SAFe’s measurement model that enables the design of a tailored metrics strategy for ensuring strategic alignment. Here we outline how change management practitioners can effectively apply the ‘Measure and Grow’ principle within an Agile Release Train (ART) to lead change and improve outcomes to support the Scaled Agile environment.
What does it mean to “measure and grow” in a business context?
In a business context, “measure and grow” refers to the process of evaluating performance metrics to identify how our work drives business value and areas for improvement, aligning with strategic business goals. By analyzing data, companies can implement strategies that foster growth, enhance productivity, and improve overall outcomes. This approach ensures continuous development aligned with organizational goals.
The “Measure and Grow” Principle in Scaled Agile
What does it mean to “measure and grow” in a business context?
“Measure and grow” in a business context refers to the process of assessing performance metrics and outcomes to identify areas for improvement. By analyzing data, businesses can implement strategies that foster growth, enhance customer satisfaction, and optimize resource allocation, ultimately driving sustainable success and competitive advantage.
“Measure and Grow” is integral to SAFe, focusing on systematic measurement and continuous improvement for overall business agility within the value stream. By leveraging data and analytics, organizations can quickly respond to market changes, make informed decisions that meet the needs of our customers, identify areas needing attention, uncover improvement opportunities, and iteratively enhance meaningful change in performance. For change management professionals, this principle translates into a structured approach to evaluate the effectiveness of change initiatives, pinpoint areas for improvement, and implement necessary adjustments.
In a Scaled Agile environment, “Measure and Grow” is a core tenant or principle that applies in all types of agile environments. By continuously assessing and refining change efforts, organizations can align their initiatives with strategic objectives, mitigate risks, and ensure sustained success.
In practice, a lot of organisations have not pinpointed exactly how change management measures can make or break the outcome of the change, and in a SAFe environment, across the program, portfolio as well as enterprise.
The ‘Measure and Grow’ principle as a core part of SAFe (From Scaled Agile Framework)
To operationalize the “Measure and Grow” principle in change management, it is crucial to establish a set of metrics and assessment frameworks. Here are some broad categories of different types of change measurements that are relevant. Note that since we are talking about SAFe, it is not just at the initiative level that we are talking about metrics. More importantly, it is about establishing a system to promote change improvement across the organisation.
Change Management KPIs and OKRs
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) are essential tools for tracking the success of change management initiatives. KPIs provide quantitative measures of performance, while OKRs align change efforts with broader organizational goals. A change management stream or function should focus on establishing KPIs or OKRs to achieve laser focus on achieving change outcomes.
Examples of Initiative-Level Change Management KPIs that may roll out to form portfolio views
Employee Engagement Levels: This KPI assesses how change impacts employee morale and engagement, providing insight into the overall acceptance and support of the change initiative.
Learning Achievement Rates: This can include tracking the percentage of employees who have completed necessary training programs, as well as achieving the target level of competence to ensure that the workforce is adequately prepared for the change.
Feedback Scores: Collecting feedback from stakeholders through surveys or feedback forms helps gauge perception and identify areas needing improvement. It is important to note that depending on the change context, stakeholders may not be happy with the content of the change. However, understanding and tracking this perception is still important.
Change Adoption Rate: This KPI measures the percentage of stakeholders who have adopted the change. High adoption rates are the ultimate goal for initiatives.
Issue Resolution Time: Measuring the time taken to resolve user-related issues related to the change highlights the efficiency of support mechanisms and the responsiveness of the change management team. This is especially important during an agile environment where there may be constant changes.
Change Readiness and Stakeholder Engagement Metrics
Evaluating change readiness and stakeholder engagement is crucial to the success of any change initiative. These metrics help assess the organization’s preparedness for change and the level of involvement and support from key stakeholders. Readiness and engagement rates can also roll up at a portfolio level to provide oversight.
Change Readiness Metrics
Readiness Assessments: Conduct surveys or interviews to gauge the organization’s preparedness for the impending change. This can include evaluating awareness, understanding, and acceptance of the change.
Resource Availability: Measure the availability of necessary resources, such as budget, personnel, and tools, to support the change initiative.
Communication Effectiveness: Assess the clarity, frequency, and effectiveness of communication regarding the change to ensure stakeholders are well-informed and engaged.
Stakeholder Engagement Metrics
Engagement Scores: Use surveys or feedback forms to measure the engagement levels of stakeholders, indicating their commitment and support for the change.
Participation Rates: Track stakeholder participation in change-related activities, such as workshops, meetings, and training sessions, to gauge their involvement.
Influence and Support: Assess the influence and support of key stakeholders in driving the change, ensuring that influential figures are actively endorsing the initiative.
By monitoring these metrics, change management professionals can identify potential barriers to change and take proactive steps to enhance readiness and engagement.
Stakeholder Competency Assessment
Successful change initiatives rely on the competence and readiness of key stakeholders. Assessing stakeholder competency involves evaluating the capability of sponsors and change champions to support and drive the change.
Sponsor Readiness/Capability Assessment
Sponsor Engagement: Measure the level of engagement and commitment from sponsors, ensuring they are actively involved and supportive of the change.
Decision-Making Effectiveness: Assess the ability of sponsors to make timely and effective decisions that facilitate the change process.
Resource Allocation: Evaluate the sponsor’s ability to allocate necessary resources, such as budget and personnel, to support the change initiative.
Change Champion Capability Assessment
Training and Knowledge: Measure the knowledge and training levels of change champions to ensure they are well-equipped to support the change.
Communication Skills: Assess the ability of change champions to effectively communicate the change message and address stakeholder concerns.
Influence and Leadership: Evaluate the influence and leadership capabilities of change champions, ensuring they can effectively drive and sustain the change.
By conducting these assessments, change management professionals can ensure that key stakeholders are prepared and capable of supporting the change initiative.
Change Adoption Metrics
Change adoption metrics provide insight into how well the change has been accepted and integrated into the organization. These metrics help assess the effectiveness of the change initiative and identify areas for improvement. At a portfolio level, there may be different levels of change adoption set for different initiatives depending on priority and complexity.
Key Change Adoption Metrics
Adoption Rate: Measure the percentage of stakeholders who have adopted the change, indicating the overall acceptance and integration of the new processes or systems.
Usage Metrics: Track the usage of new tools, processes, or systems introduced by the change to ensure they are being utilized as intended.
Performance Metrics: Assess the impact of the change on key performance indicators, such as productivity, efficiency, and quality, to determine the overall success of the change initiative.
By monitoring these metrics, change management professionals can gauge the success of the change initiative and identify opportunities for further improvement. To read more about change adoption metrics check out The Comprehensive Guide to Change Management Metrics for Adoption.
Change Impact and Capacity Metrics
Understanding the impact of change and the organization’s capacity to manage it is crucial for successful change management. Change impact metrics assess the effects of the change on the organization, while capacity metrics evaluate the organization’s ability to manage and sustain the change.
Change Impact Metrics
Aggregate impacts: Aggregate impacts across initiatives to form a view of how various teams and roles are impacted by various changes.
Risk Assessments: Identify potential risks associated with the change and evaluate their impact, ensuring that mitigation strategies are in place. A particular focus should be placed on business performance during change, across initiatives.
Capacity Metrics
Resource Capacity: Assess the availability of resources, such as personnel, budget, and tools, to support the change initiative and optimize flow time, enhance flow velocity, and improve flow efficiency while monitoring Flow Load.
Change Fatigue: Measure the risk for potential fatigue within the organization and its impact on stakeholders, ensuring that change initiatives are paced and driven appropriately.
Support Structures: Evaluate the effectiveness of support structures, such as training programs, information hubs, and help desks, in facilitating the change. Support structures may also include change champion networks.
By assessing change impact and capacity, change management practitioners can ensure that the organization is well-equipped to manage and sustain the change initiative.
Change Maturity Assessment
Change maturity assessments provide a comprehensive evaluation of the organization’s capability to manage change effectively. These assessments help identify strengths and weaknesses in the organization’s change management practices and provide a roadmap for improvement.
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
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.
By conducting regular change maturity assessments, change management professionals can identify areas for improvement and develop targeted strategies to enhance the organization’s change management capability.
The “Measure and Grow” principle is a powerful tool for improving change outcomes in a Scaled Agile environment. By leveraging data and fact-based decision-making, change management professionals can ensure that change initiatives are effective, aligned with strategic objectives, and continuously improving. Establishing robust metrics and assessment frameworks, such as KPIs, OKRs, change readiness and stakeholder engagement metrics, stakeholder competency assessments, change adoption metrics, change impact and capacity metrics, and change maturity assessments, is essential to applying the “Measure and Grow” principle effectively.
Incorporating these metrics and assessments into change management practices enables organizations to identify areas for improvement, make informed decisions, and drive continuous improvement. By doing so, change management professionals can enhance the effectiveness of change initiatives, ensure successful adoption, and ultimately achieve better business outcomes.
An enterprise change management organisational structure defines who owns change capability, who delivers individual change programmes, and how authority and resources flow between them. The three common models are centralised (a single enterprise team owns all change delivery and methodology), federated (a central centre of excellence sets standards while embedded practitioners deliver in each business unit) and hybrid (a small central team plus delivery partners and on-demand specialist resources). The right choice depends on portfolio scale, organisational maturity, and how much variation each business unit needs in how change is delivered. None is universally correct, but the wrong choice creates friction and slowed adoption.
Exploring Organisational Structures for Optimal Enterprise Change Management
Change is an inherent part of every organization’s journey towards growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. In the realm of change management, one critical consideration is the organisational structure or design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organisational structures for organisations overall, there is not one way that is the most effective. It depends on the circumstances of the company in concern.
Centralised Change Management Structure
Centralised change management structures consolidate the authority, decision-making, and oversight of strategic change management initiatives within a single, dedicated team or department. In such a structure, the change management team sometimes reports directly to either Strategy or Office of the CEO. This approach provides the change practice significant influence due to its direct linkage with strategy.
Reporting Lines: HR, IT, Strategy, and More
In addition to the choice between centralised and federated structures, change management specialists (and the senior leaders that they report to) often grapple with determining the optimal reporting lines for their change teams. Several departments within an organisation are typically considered for hosting the change management function:
1. Human Resources (HR or People & Culture)
Reporting to HR aligns cultural change management with employee engagement and organisational development, which is essential for enhancing a company’s culture. This can be particularly effective when change initiatives heavily impact the workforce, as HR possesses expertise in people-related matters.
2. Information Technology (IT)
With the increasing digitalization of business processes, reporting to IT can ensure that complex technology-driven changes, including the introduction of new technology and digital transformation, as well as improvements in product offerings, are well led and managed across the enterprise. The remit for change practices reporting to IT can range from including just technology changes, to all strategic and funded initiatives, through to all of change management as a function.
3. Strategy or Transformation Office
Reporting to the strategy or transformation office closely ties change management to the organization’s overarching strategic goals. This alignment ensures that change initiatives are directly linked to long-term vision and objectives.
4. Operations
For a lot of organisations, the Operations function can determine a lot about how the organisation is run. This can include the change management function as well. The advantage of having the change practice reporting to Operation can mean that the operating rhythm of the organisation can be designed with the right change management approaches to support business goals. The way employees are engaged, how they’re involved, and how BAU processes are run, measured, and reported can be designed with change management interventions.
Key benefits of a centralised structure include:
Consistency: Centralised control ensures consistent change management practices across the organisation, reducing confusion and increasing effectiveness in terms of setting a common level of practice. Consistency in terms of language and concepts mean that it is easier for the business to adopt change management principles and practices.
Resource Allocation: Easier resource allocation, as the centralised team can prioritize and allocate resources based on organisational priorities. With better economy of scale for a larger centralised team, the change group has the opportunity to resource initiatives using different levels of involvement, from sessional, part-time to full-time.
Alignment: Enhanced alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives, as the change management team directly interfaces with top leadership. This means that effort and focus areas as more likely to be on that which is most strategic and can impact the organisation the most.
Change maturity. The change practice has the opportunity to focus on building organisation-wide change maturity due to its ability to interface and influence across the organisation. While other change management structures may also have the ability to focus on building business change maturity, a centralised function has the advantage of having a greater impact level due to its scale.
In contrast, federated change management structures distribute change management responsibilities throughout various business units or departments. Each business unit maintains its own change management team, and these teams collaborate to execute change initiatives. Typically, these teams report to their respective department heads. This means that there is no formal enterprise change management function.
The advantages of a federated structure include:
Local Expertise: Greater understanding of department-specific needs and challenges, leading to tailored change strategies and therefore better change outcomes. Different business units can have very different cultures and different business needs. Having change professionals who understand the various intricacies of the business unit means that they’re able to design change approaches that will better meet business requirements.
Ownership and relationship: There may be increased ownership and commitment among departmental staff, as the change teams sits in the same business unit and are ‘one of them’ versus someone sent from a centralised team. Others in the business unit may be more conducive to advice and support from a colleague in the same broader business unit. It is also easier to establish a closer working relationship if the change practitioner is always working with the same teams.
Flexibility: Greater adaptability to changes in individual departments, as they can independently address unique issues. Without any direction from a central team, the business-dedicated team can better flex their service offering to meet the business unit’s particular focus areas. Whilst, a central team may de-prioritise departmental-level initiatives to be less critical, for a departmental team it is much easier to flex toward their priorities.
Impact on Business Results
The choice of change management structure and reporting lines can significantly impact an organization’s overall business results. Here’s how different structures can yield varying outcomes:
Centralised Structure Outcomes
Efficiency: Centralised structures can excel in efficiency of delivery due to its scale of economy. Whereas small departmental change teams may structure to flex and resource projects efficiently, larger change practices can avoid this by leveraging its range of practitioners with different levels of skill sets and availability.
Consistency: They ensure a consistent approach to change management, reducing confusion among business stakeholders and employees. The consistency of standards also mean that there is less risk that initiatives may experienced a change intervention that is less effective due to the centralised capability standards reinforced.
Top-Down Control: Change initiatives are closely aligned with strategic objectives set by top leadership. This means that any ‘pet projects’ or less prioritised divisional initiatives may not be as likely to be granted change management support. This does not necessarily mean that those departments won’t focus on those initiatives, it just means that change management resources are more prioritised toward what top leadership deems to be most critical.
Federated Structure Outcomes
Local Engagement: Federated structures promote local ownership and engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among departmental staff. Department-specific change practitioners will be more familiar with ‘what works’ at the department level. They are better able to leverage the right engagement channels and have the ability to access management and leadership roles at the department to garner support and drive overall initiative focus and success.
Adaptability: They allow for greater adaptability to unique departmental needs, which can be crucial in complex organisations. For example, the types of change management approaches and interventions that work for Sales organisations will be very different compared to that for call centres or processing centres, especially as employees transition into new roles. The ability for the change practitioner to adapt locally, supported by a strong company culture, can make or break an initiative’s success.
Innovation: Different units can experiment with various change approaches, leading to innovative solutions. This can be done without the confines of what is the overarching ‘standards and guidelines’ from the centralised change team.
Comparing the three structural models
The following table summarises the key characteristics, strengths, and watch-outs of each structural approach, to help guide your decision.
Characteristic
Centralised
Federated
Hybrid
Decision-making
Central change team leads all decisions
Business units lead locally
Shared between centre and BUs
Consistency of practice
High
Variable
Moderate to high
Responsiveness to local needs
Low
High
High
Resource efficiency
High (no duplication)
Lower (distributed resourcing)
Moderate
Best suited to
Regulated industries, enterprise-wide programmes
Diverse business units, decentralised orgs
Large complex organisations with varied change types
Key risk
Becomes a bottleneck; perceived as disconnected
Inconsistent quality; reinventing the wheel
Role clarity issues; governance complexity
Choosing the Right Structure
The decision regarding the optimal change management structure should be rooted in the organization’s specific context, culture, and the nature of the changes it is undergoing to establish a new status quo. Experienced change management specialists understand that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not exist. Instead, they carefully consider the organization’s goals, resources, and capacity for change.
Also, it may not need to be either centralised or federated model. It can be a combination of both. For examples:
A federated model by reporting lines, however with a strong community of practice that is centralised and that promotes sharing of practices, standards, and even resources. This ensures that the overall group is connected to each other and new innovative approaches can be shared and proliferated
A centralised model by reporting lines, however with dedicated business-specific change partners that are focused on particular business units so that they are delivering business-focused change solutions. At the same time, the team still maintains a lot of the advantages of a centralised team.
The organisational structure and reporting lines for a change practice may influence various aspects of its work, however, this may not be the most critical part of how it creates value for the organisation. Other aspects in which a change practice should focus on in its development include:
Resourcing model. How to fund change management resources and the service delivery model to support a range of different projects with different needs for seniority, skill set, and even organisational tenure
Change methodology/framework. Organisations should work on at least a change management framework to set a minimum standard for change delivery. Using a generic off-the-shelf methodology may be OK, however they may not cater for the particular language and business needs of the organisation.
Change capability and leadership. Outside of project change delivery, the team should also work on gradually building change capability within the organisation to enhance the ability to drive and support change. This may not need to be in the form of training, it can also be done through structured development through real change projects.
Change portfolio/Enterprise change management. Beyond individual change delivery, the change team should also focus on how to deliver and land multiple initiatives at the same time. Most organisations need to drive change at a faster speed than previously and there is no luxury to only focus on one change at a time. How the team measures, tracks, and ‘traffic controls’ the multiple initiatives is crucial for its success.
To read more about managing a change portfolio visit our Change Portfolio Management section for a range of articles.
Change management structures and reporting lines are not just administrative choices; they can, in some ways, have a profound impact on an organization’s ability to achieve successful change outcomes. Experienced change management specialists must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of centralised and federated structures and align them with the specific needs of their organisation. By doing so, they can maximize their ability to navigate the complexities of change and drive the organisation toward a more agile, resilient, and adaptive future.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best organisational structure for a change management function?
There is no single best structure – the right model depends on the size of the organisation, the volume and complexity of its change portfolio, and the maturity of its change management capability. The four most common models are: centralised, federated, centre of excellence, and hybrid approaches combining elements of each.
How many change managers does an enterprise need?
A common rule of thumb for large organisations undergoing significant transformation is one dedicated change manager for every two to three major change initiatives running concurrently. A change portfolio management tool that tracks change impact and capacity can help quantify the actual demand on change management resources and build a more evidence-based staffing case.
Should change managers be embedded in project teams or centralised?
Both approaches have merit. Embedded change managers develop stronger stakeholder relationships. Centralised change managers develop broader organisational perspective and can manage cross-initiative dependencies more effectively. Many mature change functions use a hybrid model.
Most organisations treat change management as something that happens within projects. A sponsor is appointed, a communication plan is written, some training is delivered, and the initiative moves on. Then the next project starts, and the whole cycle repeats from scratch, as if the organisation learned nothing from the last one.
This project-by-project approach is the hallmark of low change management maturity. And it has a measurable cost. Prosci’s research shows that organisations with excellent change management are seven times more likely to meet project objectives. WTW’s 2023 global study of 600 organisations found that companies taking a proactive, data-driven approach to change management drove nearly three times more revenue than those with below-average change effectiveness. These results do not come from applying change management to one project at a time. They come from building it as a permanent organisational capability.
This guide provides a practical framework for assessing and advancing your organisation’s change management maturity, moving from ad hoc project support to embedded organisational competency.
What change management maturity means
Change management maturity describes the degree to which an organisation has embedded change management as a consistent, scalable, and continuously improving capability, rather than an activity performed inconsistently within individual projects.
Two established models have shaped the field. The Prosci Change Management Maturity Model evaluates organisations across five capability areas: leadership, application, competencies, standardisation, and socialisation. The Change Management Institute (CMI) model takes a similar five-level approach but emphasises three domains: project change management, business change readiness, and strategic change leadership.
Both models share a core insight: maturity is not about doing change management on more projects. It is about building the systems, governance, leadership behaviours, and measurement practices that make effective change management the default way the organisation operates.
The five levels of change management maturity
While the Prosci and CMI models differ in their specifics, they converge on a five-level progression. The framework below synthesises both into a practical model you can use for self-assessment.
| Level | Name | Characteristics | Typical pain points | |——-|——|—————-|——————-| | 1 | Ad hoc | No consistent CM approach. Success depends on individual heroics. | Repeated mistakes, no institutional learning, inconsistent stakeholder experience | | 2 | Emerging | Some projects apply CM, but methods and quality vary widely. | Pockets of excellence alongside projects with no CM at all; no shared tools or templates | | 3 | Standardised | Organisation-wide CM standards exist. Common tools, templates, and training. | Standards exist on paper but are not consistently enforced; compliance is uneven | | 4 | Managed | CM integrated into project governance. Metrics tracked and reported. Portfolio-level visibility. | Governance can feel bureaucratic; risk of CM becoming a checkbox exercise rather than strategic | | 5 | Optimised | CM is a core organisational competency. Continuous improvement, data-driven, enterprise-wide. | Maintaining momentum; avoiding complacency; adapting to new types of change (AI, automation) |
Most organisations sit at Level 1 or 2. Gartner’s research found that only 32% of business leaders report achieving healthy change adoption, which suggests that the majority of organisations have not yet built the capability infrastructure needed for consistent success.
Diagnosing your current maturity level
Before you can advance maturity, you need to know where you are. The following diagnostic questions map to each level and can be used as a practical self-assessment.
Level 1 diagnostic: Ad hoc
Is change management applied inconsistently, with some projects having dedicated CM support and others having none?
Do project teams create their own approaches from scratch each time?
Is there no central function, community of practice, or shared methodology for change management?
If you answered yes to most of these, your organisation is at Level 1. The priority is to establish a baseline methodology and begin demonstrating value on a small number of visible projects.
Level 2 diagnostic: Emerging
Do some project teams apply change management using a recognised methodology, but others do not?
Are there pockets of CM expertise but no organisation-wide standard?
Is change management viewed as a project-level activity rather than an organisational capability?
Level 2 organisations need to standardise their approach, building shared tools, templates, and training that create consistency across the project portfolio.
Level 3 diagnostic: Standardised
Does the organisation have a documented CM methodology, standard templates, and training programmes?
Are change practitioners trained in a common approach?
Is CM expected on all significant projects, even if enforcement is inconsistent?
Level 3 organisations have the foundations in place. The challenge is moving from standards that exist to standards that are enforced and integrated into governance. For more on building assessment capability, see our guide to change management assessments.
Level 4 diagnostic: Managed
Is CM formally integrated into project governance (gate reviews, investment decisions, steering committees)?
Are CM metrics tracked, reported, and used to inform decisions?
Does the organisation assess change at the portfolio level, not just initiative by initiative?
Is there executive-level accountability for change management effectiveness?
Level 4 organisations are performing well. The opportunity is to move from managed governance to true organisational capability, where CM is embedded in culture, not just process.
Level 5 diagnostic: Optimised
Is CM viewed as a strategic organisational competency, not a project support function?
Does the organisation continuously improve its CM practices based on data and lessons learned?
Are leaders at all levels competent in change leadership, not just change practitioners?
Is change management integrated into strategic planning, not just project delivery?
Level 5 is rare. Organisations that reach it treat change capability as a competitive advantage and invest accordingly.
The business case for investing in change management maturity
The evidence linking maturity to performance is strong and growing.
McKinsey’s research found that only 26% of transformations succeed at both improving performance and sustaining those improvements. However, organisations that take a rigorous, structured approach report success rates of 79%, three times the average. That gap represents the difference between ad hoc project-level change management and mature, systematic capability.
The financial implications are equally clear. WTW’s research found that “change accelerator” organisations outperformed on one-year revenue change (6% versus -30% for less capable organisations), three-year revenue growth (4% versus -7%), and gross profit margin (19% versus -13%).
These are not marginal differences. They represent the compounding effect of consistently managing change well across the entire organisation, which is precisely what maturity enables.
Common maturity traps to avoid
The journey from Level 1 to Level 5 is not linear, and several common mistakes can stall progress or create the illusion of maturity without the substance.
Over-investing in training without governance
Sending 200 people through change management certification does not build maturity if there is no governance framework requiring them to apply what they learned. Training builds individual competency; maturity requires organisational systems that activate and sustain that competency.
Confusing activity with capability
An organisation that produces change impact assessments, communication plans, and training schedules for every project may look mature. But if those artefacts are produced by rote without influencing decisions, they are documentation, not capability. True capability means the organisation uses change management data to make different decisions than it would otherwise make.
Trying to jump levels
Organisations at Level 1 sometimes attempt to leap directly to Level 4 by implementing enterprise-wide governance without first building the foundational methodology and skills. This typically produces a bureaucratic framework that practitioners resent and circumvent. Each level builds on the one below it.
Treating maturity as a destination
Level 5 is not a finish line. Organisations that reach high maturity must continue investing to maintain it, adapting their practices to new types of change (AI-driven transformation, continuous delivery models, distributed workforces) and refreshing their capability as experienced practitioners move on.
How to advance from your current level
Moving from Level 1 to Level 2
Focus on demonstrating value. Select 2-3 high-visibility projects and apply a structured CM methodology rigorously. Document outcomes and build an internal evidence base. Establish a small community of practice to begin sharing approaches and lessons learned.
Moving from Level 2 to Level 3
Standardise the methodology. Create organisation-wide templates, tools, and training. Establish minimum CM requirements for all projects above a defined threshold. Build or hire a central CM capability that supports project teams.
Moving from Level 3 to Level 4
Integrate CM into governance. Add CM criteria to project gate reviews and investment decisions. Build portfolio-level visibility of change load and adoption. Establish metrics and reporting that reach executive leadership. See our guide on measuring change management outcomes for practical measurement frameworks.
Moving from Level 4 to Level 5
Embed CM into culture. Develop change leadership competency at all management levels, not just among CM practitioners. Build continuous improvement mechanisms that use data to refine practices. Integrate CM into strategic planning, not just project delivery. Invest in digital platforms that enable real-time, portfolio-wide change intelligence.
How digital platforms accelerate maturity
Building change management maturity at Levels 3-5 requires data infrastructure that manual methods cannot provide. Portfolio-level visibility, real-time adoption tracking, cumulative impact analysis, and measurement dashboards all require tooling.
Digital change management platforms such as The Change Compass enable organisations to manage change at the portfolio level, visualise cumulative impact across stakeholder groups, and track adoption metrics in real time. This is particularly valuable for organisations at Level 3 and above, where the shift from project-level to portfolio-level capability requires data that spreadsheets and manual processes cannot sustain. For organisations moving beyond heatmaps toward dynamic analytics, digital platforms are not optional; they are foundational.
Change management maturity is not about achieving a perfect score on a model. It is about building the organisational capability to manage change consistently, measure its impact rigorously, and improve continuously. Start by diagnosing where you are today using the five-level framework. Identify the specific gaps between your current level and the next. Invest in the systems, governance, skills, and leadership behaviours that will close those gaps. The organisations that build change management maturity do not just deliver better individual projects; they build a compounding advantage that makes every subsequent transformation more likely to succeed.
Frequently asked questions
What is change management maturity? Change management maturity describes the degree to which an organisation has embedded change management as a consistent, scalable, and continuously improving capability. It progresses through five levels, from ad hoc project support to a core organisational competency integrated into governance, culture, and strategic planning.
How long does it take to advance change management maturity? Moving one level typically takes 12-24 months of sustained effort. Moving from Level 1 to Level 3 can take 2-4 years. Progress depends on executive sponsorship, investment in capability building, and willingness to integrate CM into governance. Trying to compress timelines by skipping levels typically backfires.
Do you need a consultant to build change management maturity? External consultants can accelerate specific stages, particularly initial methodology design and benchmarking against industry peers. However, sustainable maturity must be built internally. The most effective approach is to use external expertise to establish foundations and transfer capability, then build and maintain maturity through internal teams and systems.
What is the relationship between change management maturity and organisational culture? Culture and maturity reinforce each other. An organisation with a strong change culture, where leaders model adaptive behaviours and employees expect continuous improvement, will find it easier to advance maturity. Conversely, building maturity practices (governance, measurement, shared methodology) gradually shifts culture toward greater change capability. Neither can be built in isolation.
Can an organisation be at different maturity levels for different types of change? Yes. Many organisations demonstrate higher maturity for technology-driven changes (where project methodologies enforce CM) than for cultural or structural changes. This is common and worth diagnosing explicitly, as it reveals where targeted investment is needed.
How do you measure change management maturity? Use a structured self-assessment against the five maturity levels, evaluating capability areas such as methodology standardisation, governance integration, leadership competency, measurement practices, and portfolio-level visibility. Complement self-assessment with benchmarking against industry standards (Prosci or CMI models) and track progress annually.
Suggested title: Change management maturity: a practical guide to building organisational capability
Suggested meta description: Assess your change management maturity across 5 levels with diagnostic questions and a practical framework for advancing organisational capability.
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 governance maturity varies widely across organizations – from those with established PMOs and formal governance structures to others that rely on existing operational and executive forums without formal change governance setups. Change managers must tailor their influence strategies to fit this maturity spectrum while empowering governance that supports change transformation success. Here we outline practical tips and approaches relevant whether you operate within high-maturity governance or in environments still building foundational capabilities.
1. Leverage Governance Dexterity – Adapt to Your Maturity Context
For organizations with mature PMOs and governance:
Encourage maintaining cadence with purpose – weekly flash checks for quick updates, monthly value reviews to keep benefits front of mind, and quarterly strategic moments for big-picture alignment and celebration. This reduces fatigue and keeps governance tightly connected to business outcomes.
Share frameworks that provide agility within formal governance so cadence remains flexible without diminishing control. For example, leverage agile change management principles to:
Embedding lightweight, iterative review processes that emphasize timely feedback and rapid decision-making without heavy documentation or unnecessary meetings.
Using tools like RACI matrices and decision-rights grids to clarify who has authority and responsibility, so governance can flex in how often or how deeply it engages, but never loses accountability.
Allowing governance forums to scale their activity up or down based on change program phase, risk, or complexity, rather than sticking to a rigid calendar or process.
For less mature organizations without dedicated governance forums:
Propose leveraging existing operational or executive forums to introduce lightweight governance rhythms that do not overburden people. For example, brief monthly check-ins during established leadership meetings or quarterly presentation slots to highlight change progress and risks.
Use simple tools like cadence checklists or short-status emails tailored for existing leaders who may not be change specialists. Position these rhythms as value-adds to existing meetings to gain buy-in.
Practical tips:
Offer templates for flash checks and value meetings that can be easily integrated into the existing meeting culture.
Advocate building urgency without burnout by linking cadence to visible outcomes rather than just process compliance.
2. Drive Enterprise PMO & Portfolio Alignment – Fit Your Organization’s Governance Model
For organizations with established PMOs:
Partner closely with PMO and portfolio managers to ensure change work is fully integrated. Act as a bridge between change activities and portfolio governance to align priorities effectively.
Encourage shared dashboards that combine project and change metrics, giving leadership clarity on both deliverables and adoption risks.
Advocate for change governance representation in portfolio decision forums to embed change risk and opportunities in prioritization.
For organizations without formal PMOs:
Identify operational units or executive groups with portfolio oversight responsibilities and seek informal relationships with key members.
Suggest practical ways to leverage existing governance bodies for change oversight by embedding change highlights in their agenda.
Provide simple portfolio mapping or status tools that don’t require heavy infrastructure but help visualize transformation across initiatives.
Practical tips:
Offer to co-create change input templates that non-PMO forums can use to review change risk, interdependencies and impact.
Share success stories illustrating how integrated PMO-change governance drives consistent messaging and prioritization.
3. Shape Executive Reporting – From Insight to Influence
For organizations with mature reporting processes:
Help refine executive dashboards by ensuring a balance between project status and change readiness/adoption metrics.
Coach change teams to translate data into compelling narratives that highlight risks, opportunities, and decision points.
Push for reporting formats that enable proactive governance action rather than reactive compliance.
For organizations with limited or no formal executive reporting:
Influence existing executive communications by proposing change-related content for leadership newsletters, briefings, or standing meeting updates.
Develop concise, jargon-free reports that fit into current executive reading habits and spotlight what matters most.
Advocate for simple visual reporting tools, e.g., impact bar charts or risk registers that executives can quickly interpret.
Practical tips:
Provide sample executive report templates tailored for different maturity levels.
Offer coaching sessions on storytelling with data to change teams who may be new to executive reporting.
4. Champion Scenario Planning to Build Resilience
Scenario planning is a powerful tool that helps organizations prepare for uncertainty by imagining multiple plausible futures, assessing their impact, and planning appropriate responses. For change practitioners, influencing scenario planning within change governance is critical to making transformation resilient to volatile conditions and unexpected challenges.
For organizations with mature change governance and PMO structures:
Advocate for formal inclusion of scenario planning in governance cycles, such as quarterly strategy reviews or portfolio risk assessments.
Collaborate with PMO, risk, and strategy functions to develop integrated scenario frameworks that tie external uncertainties with change delivery risks.
Use structured tools and templates to develop 2-3 distinct scenarios based on critical uncertainties impacting change programs (e.g., regulatory shifts, technology adoption rates, cost pressures, market dynamics).
Ensure scenario outputs include clear implications for adoption risk, resource allocation, and contingency triggers to inform governance decision-making.
For organizations with limited formal governance:
Promote lightweight scenario planning approaches that can fit into existing forums or leadership discussions without requiring new committees.
Facilitate workshops or brown bag sessions with key stakeholders to brainstorm “what-if” scenarios that highlight risks and opportunities in their own language.
Use simple scenario templates capturing scenario description, key assumptions, impacts, and early warning signs to keep the process manageable and relevant.
Position scenario planning as a practical alternative to reactive firefighting, reinforcing its value for anticipating and mitigating disruption to change efforts.
Practical Tips for All Maturity Levels:
Focus scenario development on a small number (2-3) of meaningful scenarios that highlight material differences rather than an exhaustive list.
Use scenario planning to identify robust strategies that perform well across multiple futures, reducing overcommitment to any single pathway.
Regularly review and update scenarios to reflect new information and organizational shifts, embedding this as a governance cadence.
Engage diverse viewpoints in scenario sessions to challenge assumptions and broaden organizational readiness.
Example Scenario Planning Framework (in brief):
Step
Action
Identify Key Drivers
Pinpoint external and internal uncertainties: economic, technological, regulatory, organizational
Develop Scenarios
Build 2-3 narrative futures exploring combinations of drivers
Analyze Impact
Assess effects on change timelines, adoption, resources
Define Responses
Create contingency plans and decision points
Monitor & Update
Track relevant indicators and review scenarios regularly
5. Clarify Decision Making Authority, and Risk Appetite – Influence Without Direct Control
One of the most frequent governance pitfalls in transformation is unclear decision rights, leading to duplicated effort or “decision limbo,” which stalls progress. Change practitioners can significantly influence clarity around decision making even when not formally leading governance forums.
For organizations with high governance maturity:
Advocate for or refine delegation charters that grant clear authority boundaries across change roles and governance tiers.
Promote use of decision-rights grids paired with RACI matrices, documenting decisions by type, level, and role to eliminate ambiguity.
Encourage articulation of organization’s risk appetite in governance policies to guide decisions on escalation and investment.
Work with governance leads to socialise these tools regularly and embed them in operational processes.
For organizations with emerging or informal governance:
Educate stakeholders about the value of explicit decision clarity through workshops or short guides.
Propose simple RACI templates tailored for key initiatives to clarify roles on responsibility, accountability, consultation, and information sharing.
Introduce a basic decision-rights grid to categorize decisions (routine operational, tactical, strategic) and assign decision tiers even if informally.
Frame this work as risk mitigation: reducing delays and confusion frees leaders to focus on strategic priorities.
Practical Tips Across Maturity Levels:
Develop easy-to-use templates and cheat sheets for RACI and decision grids to distribute widely.
Use storytelling and real case examples to illustrate consequences of unclear decision-making (e.g., project delays, duplicated efforts).
Regularly revisit and update decision frameworks as governance evolves, ensuring ongoing relevance.
Encourage governance sponsors to visibly support and enforce these clarity tools.
6. Define and Promote Clear Escalation Paths
Clear escalation paths empower teams to raise concerns timely and guide issues to the appropriate governance levels without clogging decision forums or escalating unnecessarily. Change managers can champion and embed escalation discipline through influence, education, and practical tools.
For organizations with mature governance:
Collaborate with governance teams to map all escalation routes related to change risks, decisions, and resource conflicts.
Promote communication plans ensuring every contributor understands when and how to escalate – down to roles and contact points.
Incorporate escalation workflows into governance charters, RACI matrices, and decision-rights grids to reinforce paths.
Champion periodic training or refresh sessions aligned with governance cadence to maintain escalation readiness.
For organizations with limited governance forums:
Identify natural escalation points in existing leadership or operational forums and propose embedding change escalation protocols there.
Provide clear documentation and quick-reference escalation flow diagrams for frontline teams and managers.
Coach teams and middle managers on recognizing escalation triggers and the best mode of communication to avoid bottlenecks.
Frame escalation discipline as a way to safeguard both operational pace and leadership bandwidth.
Practical Tips Usable in All Environments:
Use visual flowcharts to depict escalation paths, making them highly accessible and easy to recall.
Set guidelines on what kinds of issues require escalation vs. local resolution to reduce unnecessary escalations.
Promote handling low-level risks swiftly through informal escalation while preserving formal routes for major decisions.
Encourage transparency in escalation outcomes to build trust and learning across the organization.
7. Invest in Stakeholder Education & Engagement – Be the Governance Evangelist
The success of change governance depends as much on people’s understanding and buy-in as on structures and processes. Senior change managers have a vital role in educating stakeholders, increasing governance literacy, and fostering engagement – especially in organizations where governance maturity varies or formal forums are limited.
For organizations with mature governance:
Develop formal stakeholder education programs that provide regular training on governance roles, decision frameworks, escalation processes, and how governance aligns with transformation outcomes.
Use targeted communications that frame governance benefits in terms relevant to each stakeholder group – showing “what’s in it for them.”
Implement forums like governance clinics or Q&A sessions where stakeholders can clarify their roles, raise concerns, and share governance success stories.
Collaborate with governance sponsors to visibly champion these initiatives to prevent stakeholder fatigue and increase participation.
For organizations with emerging or informal governance:
Start small with bite-sized governance literacy sessions embedded in existing communication channels such as team meetings or newsletters – keep it jargon-free and highly practical.
Translate complex governance concepts into everyday language, storytelling, and case examples that resonate with different stakeholder groups.
Identify and coach governance champions within teams who can help cascade key messages informally.
Use tools such as quick reference guides, checklists, and simplified RACI matrices to embed governance knowledge across operational levels.
Practical Tips Across All Maturity Levels:
Conduct a stakeholder governance literacy audit to understand knowledge gaps and tailor education efforts accordingly.
Develop short governance video clips or Q&A hosted by trusted leaders explaining key governance principles and benefits.
Regularly gather feedback through surveys or informal conversations to refine education efforts ensuring they meet stakeholder needs.
Emphasize the connection between good governance practices and the successful delivery of benefits, reducing resistance and increasing advocacy.
Change governance is often viewed as a formal, top-down function but, as change managers, you are uniquely positioned to influence its design and execution regardless of your direct access to governance forums. The key lies in adapting your approaches to the maturity and structure of your organization’s governance, leveraging existing forums and networks, and focusing on clear communication, collaboration, and practical tools.
By championing governance dexterity, bridging PMO and portfolio governance gaps, shaping executive reporting, embedding scenario planning, clarifying decision rights, defining escalation paths, and investing in stakeholder education, you create a foundation where governance truly supports transformation velocity, clarity, and resilience. You also create a strategic change contribution to help the organisation reach its transformation benefit goals.
Tools & Templates for Influence and Education
Cadence Checklists: Ready-to-use templates to propose weekly flash checks, monthly value meetings, and quarterly strategic reviews tailored for different governance forums and maturity.
Sample RACI Matrix & Decision-Rights Grid: Simplified versions that can be adapted for routine and strategic decisions, supporting role clarity and authority distribution.
Escalation Flow Diagram: Visual maps suitable for team briefings and leader coaching in both formal and informal governance contexts.
Stakeholder Education Plan Outline: A scalable framework for assessing needs, designing education content, and measuring engagement impact.
