Here is a paradox that plays out in large organisations with uncomfortable regularity. The more complex and frequent the change environment becomes, the more pressure falls on the enterprise change management function to deliver results. And yet, precisely when that pressure peaks, these same functions often face budget scrutiny, headcount reductions, and questions about their strategic value. They are asked to prove their worth at exactly the moment when the proof is hardest to produce.
The root cause is not a capability problem. Most enterprise change management (ECM) functions contain skilled practitioners who understand how to support change. The problem is strategic positioning. ECM has historically been framed as a support function, something you add to a project to improve its odds, rather than as a capability that operates at the enterprise level to improve the organisation’s overall capacity to change. That framing shapes what ECM functions measure, how they deploy their resources, and crucially, how business leaders perceive their value.
This article sets out what a genuine enterprise change management strategy looks like, why the most effective ECM functions are repositioning from tactical support to strategic advisory, and what the practical steps are to make that shift happen in your organisation.
The current state of enterprise change management
Most ECM functions have evolved to deliver two primary services: capability building and project resourcing. These are foundational and they matter. But they are also insufficient as the totality of an enterprise change management strategy.
Capability building and project resourcing
Capability building involves developing the organisation’s change skills over time. This typically includes training programmes for project managers and people leaders, establishing communities of practice, developing change management frameworks and toolkits, and coaching practitioners. The goal is to improve the organisation’s change capability so that each successive initiative is better managed than the last.
Project resourcing involves supplying skilled change practitioners to specific initiatives. When a major technology programme, restructure or merger needs change management support, the ECM function either deploys its own practitioners or coordinates the engagement of external consultants. This service is operationally essential in most large organisations, where the demand for change practitioners consistently outstrips the available supply.
Why these activities are necessary but not sufficient
Both capability building and project resourcing are valuable. Neither positions the ECM function as indispensable. The reason is structural: both services are episodic and project-dependent. When the project succeeds, the change management contribution is rarely isolated from the overall project success. When the project struggles, change management is often the first area to be de-scoped. And when business conditions tighten, capability building programmes are frequently the first overhead line to be cut.
Research consistently shows that projects with excellent change management are six times more likely to meet their objectives than those with poor or absent change management support. Yet this finding has not translated into secure strategic positioning for most ECM functions. The reason is that the value of change management remains largely invisible because it is embedded within projects and not independently measured.
The strategic blind spot in most enterprise change management strategy
The most significant gap in the typical ECM function is not what it does, but what it does not do. Two services in particular represent the highest-value activities available to enterprise change management functions, and most organisations are not delivering them at scale.
Enterprise change performance measurement
The first high-value service is systematic measurement of change performance across the organisation’s entire portfolio of initiatives. Not project-by-project reporting, which happens within individual programmes, but enterprise-level analytics that aggregate and interpret change data across all concurrent initiatives to surface patterns, risks and opportunities that are invisible at the project level.
This kind of measurement capability allows an ECM function to answer the questions that most matter to senior leaders:
Which business units are carrying the highest change load, and is that load sustainable?
Which change initiatives are showing the strongest adoption signals, and what is different about how they are being managed?
Where are the change bottlenecks in the organisation, not within specific projects but across the portfolio as a whole?
How is the organisation’s change capacity evolving over time, and are the current resourcing models keeping pace?
These are strategic questions. They are also questions that no individual project team can answer, because the data that would answer them sits across multiple programmes simultaneously. The ECM function is uniquely positioned to aggregate and interpret this data, but only if it has invested in the measurement infrastructure to do so.
Strategic and operational change planning
The second high-value service is genuine strategic partnership with leadership teams on change planning. This moves well beyond advising on communications plans and training design. It means being present in strategic planning conversations to model the change implications of different strategic choices, to surface capacity constraints before investments are committed, and to help leaders make realistic assessments of what the organisation can absorb and in what sequence.
According to McKinsey research on large-scale transformations, the majority of transformation failures trace back to underestimating the people and organisational dimensions of change, not the technical execution. Companies where leaders are equipped to navigate the people side of change are significantly more likely to deliver transformation outcomes. ECM functions that position themselves as strategic advisors, rather than project support resources, are better placed to prevent those failures.
What a strategic enterprise change management strategy looks like in practice
Enterprise change performance measurement at portfolio level
A strategic ECM function builds and maintains a portfolio-level view of change across the organisation. This means tracking not just which projects are in flight, but what those projects are asking of employees in terms of behaviour change, system adoption, process redesign and role adjustment. It means understanding how that demand is distributed across the organisation’s business units, teams and roles, and how it shifts over time as programmes progress.
This measurement capability enables two things that are otherwise impossible. First, it allows the ECM function to identify change saturation risks before they translate into programme failures. When a business unit is simultaneously managing a technology migration, a reporting structure change, and a new customer service protocol, the aggregate demand on its people may be unsustainable, even if each individual project’s impact assessment looks manageable. Enterprise-level data surfaces this pattern. Project-level data cannot.
Second, it allows the ECM function to build an evidence base for its own value proposition. When measurement data shows a consistent correlation between the quality of change support provided and the speed and completeness of adoption, the argument for change management investment stops being an assertion and becomes an empirical finding. That is a fundamentally different position to occupy in leadership conversations.
Strategic change planning and governance
A strategic ECM function participates in planning cycles at the enterprise level, not just the project level. This means having a seat at the table when investment decisions are made about which initiatives to prioritise, when to sequence them, and what resourcing they require. It means being able to present a portfolio view of change load and capacity, and to model the implications of different sequencing choices.
This is change governance in its most valuable form. Rather than retrospectively managing the change implications of decisions already made, the ECM function is shaping the decision-making process itself. It brings a perspective that no other function provides: an integrated view of the organisation’s change capacity and the aggregate demands that the portfolio of initiatives is placing on that capacity.
Gartner research highlights that 77% of HR leaders report employee fatigue as a significant barrier to transformation success, and 82% believe managers are not fully equipped to lead change. These are enterprise-level problems that require enterprise-level solutions. A change governance function that is embedded in strategic planning is far better positioned to address them than one that is deployed project by project.
Advisory services for senior leaders
The third component of a strategic ECM function is a genuine advisory capability for senior leaders, particularly Heads of Transformation, Chief Operating Officers, and business unit leaders who are managing significant change portfolios. This advisory service goes beyond supporting individual programmes to helping leaders understand and manage the change environment they are responsible for.
This is the kind of work that positions ECM as a strategic partner rather than a project resource. It requires the ECM function to have credible enterprise-level data, analytical capability, and the organisational standing to have direct conversations with senior leaders about difficult topics, including whether specific initiatives should proceed as planned, whether the sequencing of the portfolio makes sense, and whether the organisation’s change capacity is being systematically built or systematically eroded.
Building the business case for strategic enterprise change management
Repositioning an ECM function from tactical support to strategic advisory requires a business case, and the business case requires data. This creates a bootstrapping challenge: the very data that would prove the value of strategic ECM is often not available because the ECM function has not yet built the measurement infrastructure to collect it.
The most effective approach is to start with a narrow, high-visibility measurement initiative that demonstrates value quickly. Choose a part of the organisation, a specific business unit or a cluster of related initiatives, where you can build a comprehensive change impact picture. Use that picture to support a planning conversation with the relevant business leader. If the conversation produces a different decision, or prevents a predictable problem, you have your proof of concept.
From there, extend the measurement capability progressively, adding business units, adding dimensions, and building the analytical infrastructure that makes enterprise-level insight possible. The goal is not to build a comprehensive measurement system before you have anything to show for it. The goal is to demonstrate the strategic value of measurement incrementally, building credibility and investment case as you go.
It is also worth being explicit about the commercial case. Research from Prosci’s benchmarking studies indicates that projects meeting their objectives are significantly more likely to deliver the financial benefits underpinning the initial investment decision. When change management is well executed and benefit realisation improves, the ROI on change management investment is straightforward to demonstrate. Most ECM functions have not done this calculation explicitly. Doing so is a powerful step toward strategic repositioning.
Common obstacles and how to overcome them
The data problem
The most common obstacle is the absence of reliable, granular change impact data. Without it, the ECM function cannot produce the portfolio-level insights that would demonstrate strategic value. The solution is to invest in data infrastructure early, even if the initial data quality is imperfect. A rough, enterprise-wide picture of change load is more useful for strategic planning than a highly polished view of one or two projects.
The positioning problem
ECM functions that have operated as project support resources for years often find it difficult to be taken seriously as strategic advisors. Business leaders have a mental model of what the change team does, and it does not include portfolio-level analytics or strategic planning advice. Changing that mental model requires consistent, credible demonstrations of the value the function can provide at the enterprise level. This takes time and requires the support of an executive sponsor who understands and advocates for the strategic ECM model.
The resource constraint
With limited budgets and headcount, ECM functions often cannot do everything, and defaulting to immediate project demands is understandable. The response to this constraint is not to add more capacity before repositioning, but to actively shift the balance of activity. Every hour spent on project-specific support that could be provided by a well-equipped project sponsor or line manager is an hour not spent on enterprise-level measurement and planning. The shift requires deliberate reprioritisation, not just additional resources.
Digital tools that enable strategic enterprise change management
The practical challenge of managing enterprise-level change data, across multiple initiatives, business units and time periods, is significant. Manual approaches using spreadsheets and documents cannot scale to the complexity of a genuine portfolio-level measurement and planning function.
The Change Compass is a digital platform purpose-built for enterprise change management functions. It enables change teams to capture, aggregate and analyse change impact data across the entire portfolio, producing the enterprise-level insights that support strategic planning and governance. For Heads of Transformation and ECM leaders who want to move beyond the heat map and the project status report, it provides the analytical infrastructure to make that shift practical.
The platform supports both the measurement and the planning dimensions of strategic ECM: tracking change load and capacity across business units, monitoring adoption and readiness at the portfolio level, and producing the kind of leadership-ready analytics that shift the conversation from “are we doing enough change management on this project?” to “what does our organisation’s change capacity tell us about the right sequencing and investment for this portfolio?”
Enterprise change management strategy, done well, is not about adding more project support resources or expanding capability building programmes. It is about repositioning the ECM function as a strategic partner that provides enterprise-level insight, governance and advisory services that no other function is equipped to deliver.
That repositioning requires investment in measurement infrastructure, a clear-eyed business case built on evidence, and the organisational standing to have difficult conversations with senior leaders about capacity, sequencing and risk. It also requires patience, because the shift from tactical support to strategic advisory is not a single programme but a sustained evolution.
The organisations that get this right build something durable: an enterprise change management function that is indispensable not because it is embedded in every project, but because it provides the strategic intelligence that makes the portfolio of projects more likely to succeed. That is the function worth building.
Frequently asked questions
What is an enterprise change management strategy?
An enterprise change management strategy is a deliberate approach to building and deploying change management capability at the organisational level, rather than project by project. It includes investment in enterprise-level measurement of change performance, strategic planning and governance services for senior leaders, and advisory capability that helps organisations make better decisions about the sequencing, resourcing and design of their change portfolio.
How does enterprise change management differ from project-level change management?
Project-level change management focuses on supporting a specific initiative, ensuring that the people affected by that project are ready and willing to adopt the change. Enterprise change management operates across the entire portfolio of initiatives, providing a portfolio-level view of change load and capacity, identifying systemic risks that are invisible at the project level, and advising leadership on portfolio decisions that affect the organisation’s overall change capacity.
Why do most enterprise change management functions struggle to demonstrate strategic value?
Most ECM functions struggle because they have positioned themselves primarily as project support and capability building resources, both of which are episodic and difficult to attribute to specific outcomes. Strategic value requires an independent measurement and advisory capability that produces insights unavailable from any other function. Without that capability, ECM remains a cost centre rather than a strategic partner.
What are the highest-value services an enterprise change management function can provide?
The two highest-value services are enterprise change performance measurement, which provides portfolio-level analytics on change load, adoption and capacity, and strategic change planning and governance, which provides a seat at the table in investment and sequencing decisions. Both require a level of data and analytical capability that goes beyond what most ECM functions currently have.
How can an ECM function start repositioning itself as a strategic partner?
The most effective approach is to start with a narrow, high-visibility measurement initiative that demonstrates enterprise-level value quickly. Build a comprehensive change picture for a specific business unit or cluster of initiatives, use it to support a planning conversation with a senior leader, and demonstrate that the insight changes a decision or prevents a predictable problem. Then extend the capability progressively, building the evidence base for broader investment.
What digital tools support strategic enterprise change management?
Digital change management platforms that enable portfolio-level data capture, aggregation and analysis are central to a strategic ECM capability. They allow change teams to produce the enterprise-level insights, across multiple business units, projects and time periods simultaneously, that are impossible to generate with manual approaches. The key is choosing a platform that connects change impact data with adoption and readiness data, providing an integrated view of the organisation’s change environment.
References
Prosci. The Correlation Between Change Management and Project Success. https://www.prosci.com/blog/the-correlation-between-change-management-and-project-success
McKinsey & Company. The People Power of Transformations. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-people-power-of-transformations
Gartner. Organisational Change Management Research and Insights. https://www.gartner.com/en/human-resources/topics/organizational-change-management
Prosci. 5 Strategic Decisions for Building Organisational Change Capability in 2026. https://www.prosci.com/blog/5-strategic-decisions-for-building-organizational-change-capability
IMPLEMENTATION NOTES
Post ID: 21541
Suggested title: Enterprise change management strategy: repositioning from tactical support to strategic powerhouse
Meta description: Learn how to build an enterprise change management strategy that moves your ECM function from tactical project support to strategic leadership partner.
Ask a senior leader whether they have adequate sponsorship for each of their change programmes, and most will say yes. Ask them how much cumulative change load their front-line teams are carrying across the full portfolio right now, and very few can answer. This gap, between confidence at the programme level and blindness at the portfolio level, is one of the most consistent and consequential failure patterns in enterprise transformation.
Change portfolio literacy is the ability to read, interpret, and act on a portfolio-level view of organisational change: what is changing, for whom, at what pace, and with what cumulative effect on the people being asked to absorb it all. In most organisations, this literacy is concentrated in change functions, if it exists at all. Senior leaders, the people with the authority to make the sequencing, resourcing, and prioritisation decisions that actually determine portfolio outcomes, typically lack it.
Closing this gap does not require turning executives into change managers. It requires giving them the information and the language to ask different questions of their change portfolios, and to act on the answers.
Why executives default to programme-level thinking
The governance structures that senior leaders use to oversee change are almost universally designed around individual programmes. Investment committees evaluate programmes. Executive sponsors are assigned to programmes. Status reporting comes from programmes. RAG dashboards present programme-level health. The system trains leaders to ask programme-level questions: Is this initiative on track? Is the business case holding? Are the milestones being met?
These are legitimate questions. The problem is that they are the wrong level of analysis for understanding whether organisational change is actually being managed well.
Prosci’s 12th edition Best Practices in Change Management study found that 52% of executive sponsors do not have an adequate understanding of their role in change. More revealing is what they are not being asked to do. Sponsor briefings cover individual initiative progress. They rarely cover cumulative load, portfolio interaction effects, or how a specific programme’s timeline is affecting the absorption capacity of the teams it targets.
This is a literacy problem, not an engagement problem. Most senior leaders are genuinely committed to sponsoring their change programmes. They are simply not equipped to see, or therefore to manage, the portfolio-level dynamics that determine whether the aggregate of those programmes succeeds.
What change portfolio literacy looks like in practice
A change-literate senior leader can engage meaningfully with four categories of information that portfolio-illiterate leaders typically cannot.
Cumulative impact by employee group
The most important thing a senior leader needs to understand about their change portfolio is not what each programme is doing, but how much aggregate change is landing on specific employee groups and when. A front-line operations team handling a systems migration, a restructure, and two new process changes simultaneously is in a materially different position from a team handling one of those changes in isolation. The risks to adoption, productivity, and retention are different. The support investment required is different.
Change-literate executives understand this. They can read a cumulative impact view by business unit or role group, recognise when load is elevated, and ask the right questions about whether the current portfolio plan is creating avoidable saturation risk.
Adoption evidence, not delivery evidence
Delivery reporting, milestones hit, go-lives completed, budgets on track, tells leaders that work is being done. It does not tell them whether change is actually occurring. A programme can be on time, on budget, and fully compliant with its governance requirements, while adoption in the target group is running at 40% of plan.
Change-literate executives insist on seeing adoption data alongside delivery data. They understand that a portfolio where every programme is green from a delivery perspective can simultaneously be in serious trouble from a change perspective, if adoption is consistently underperforming across multiple initiatives.
Change load relative to absorptive capacity
Every employee group has a finite capacity to absorb change over a given period. That capacity is shaped by prior change history, current baseline workload, the quality of management support, and the degree to which prior changes have genuinely embedded. When demand exceeds capacity, adoption quality degrades across the board.
Change-literate executives can engage with the concept of absorptive capacity and understand when their portfolio plan is structurally likely to exceed it for specific groups. This understanding changes how they approach sequencing decisions. Instead of defaulting to the programme that has the most political momentum or the most urgent business driver, they can weigh the organisational cost of proceeding on the current timeline against the cost of adjustment.
Portfolio governance authority
Effective change portfolio management requires a governance body that can make cross-programme decisions: delay a go-live, consolidate two programmes with overlapping target groups, redirect resource from a low-priority initiative to a high-saturation-risk group. Individual programme sponsors cannot make these decisions, because each has a rational incentive to advocate for their programme’s priority.
Gartner’s research indicates that by 2026, 30% of organisations will have invested in the talent and tools needed for strategic portfolio management. Change-literate senior leaders understand that this portfolio governance body needs to exist, what authority it requires, and why it cannot be replaced by bilateral conversations between programme sponsors.
The language executives need to understand
Building change portfolio literacy is partly a matter of vocabulary. Executives who can use these terms precisely are better equipped to ask useful questions of their change functions.
Change load refers to the aggregate demand that active and planned change initiatives place on a specific employee group over a defined period. High load is not inherently bad. Load that exceeds absorptive capacity is the problem.
Change saturation is the condition that occurs when cumulative load has depleted an employee group’s capacity to engage with change meaningfully. Saturated groups show characteristic patterns: disproportionate resistance to new initiatives, declining engagement scores, elevated support demand after go-live, and adoption curves that plateau well below target.
Change collision occurs when two or more initiatives demand significant behavioural change from the same group simultaneously, without coordination of timing or support. Collision reduces adoption outcomes for both initiatives and is almost entirely preventable with adequate portfolio visibility.
Absorptive capacity is a group’s ability to take on and embed new changes given their current and recent change history. It is not a fixed attribute. It is shaped by management quality, support availability, and the embedding status of prior changes.
Portfolio sequencing is the deliberate ordering and timing of change initiatives across the portfolio to minimise collision, respect absorptive capacity, and prioritise strategically important changes when load is high.
Building change portfolio literacy in your senior team
The most effective approach to building executive change portfolio literacy is showing, not telling. Most senior leaders do not become change-literate through briefings or methodology overviews. They become change-literate through repeated exposure to portfolio-level data and the decision-making conversations it enables.
The practical steps that change functions have found most effective include:
Starting with a portfolio view presentation. The first exposure to a cumulative impact map, showing load by business unit across the next two quarters, typically generates immediate questions from executives who have never seen change represented this way. The visual is more effective than any explanation. Use it to introduce vocabulary and invite questions rather than present conclusions.
Integrating portfolio data into existing governance forums. The most sustainable path to change portfolio literacy is connecting it to forums that already have authority: transformation steering committees, executive leadership team meetings, and business unit leadership reviews. A dedicated change forum that sits outside the existing governance structure will struggle to influence sequencing and resourcing decisions.
Framing in the language executives use. Change functions that speak the language of adoption rates, impact dimensions, and change saturation scores when executives are thinking in terms of revenue risk, talent retention, and business case delivery lose the room. The translation layer is the change leader’s job: “this programme’s go-live creates a 12-week window where our customer operations team carries a load equivalent to three major initiatives, based on what we know about their prior absorption rate.”
Making sponsor coaching a regular practice.Prosci’s research consistently finds that active and visible executive sponsorship increases change success rates by up to six times. But sponsorship quality depends on sponsor understanding. Regular, structured coaching conversations with programme sponsors, covering not just their individual programme but the portfolio context their programme sits within, is one of the highest-return investments a change function can make.
What good looks like: the change-literate leadership team
In organisations where change portfolio literacy is genuinely embedded at the senior level, the conversations in governance forums are qualitatively different. Rather than programme-by-programme status reviews, leadership teams engage with portfolio-level questions:
Which employee groups are carrying the highest cumulative load over the next quarter, and is the planned timeline for the new system programme going to push them into saturation risk?
Are our adoption rates across the portfolio consistent with our transformation ambitions, or are we systematically leaving value on the table by treating change management as a delivery function?
What would we need to do differently in the next six months to build absorptive capacity in our most change-impacted groups, rather than continuing to deploy at the current pace?
These are the questions that change-literate leaders ask. They are also the questions that drive the resourcing, sequencing, and investment decisions that determine whether an enterprise transformation programme delivers its intended value.
Developing the digital infrastructure to support these conversations, through portfolio platforms that aggregate impact data, track adoption across programmes, and generate the portfolio views that executive conversations require, is a practical prerequisite. Tools such as The Change Compass are built specifically for this purpose: providing the portfolio visibility that makes change portfolio literacy actionable rather than aspirational.
Where to start
Building change portfolio literacy in a senior team takes time, but the first step is quick. Prepare a single portfolio view: all active and planned change initiatives, mapped against the employee groups they affect, with a simple cumulative load indicator for the next 90 days.
Present it at a senior forum where decisions about transformation investment and sequencing are made. Do not frame it as a change management presentation. Frame it as a risk and capacity picture for the organisation’s transformation programme. The questions it generates will do more to build change portfolio literacy in 20 minutes than any amount of methodology briefing.
From there, the task is to make this view a regular feature of the governance conversation, not a one-off analysis. Literacy builds through repeated engagement with data and the decisions it informs.
Frequently asked questions
What is change portfolio literacy?
Change portfolio literacy is the ability of senior leaders to read and act on a portfolio-level view of organisational change: understanding cumulative change load by employee group, interpreting adoption evidence across multiple programmes, recognising change collision and saturation risk, and making portfolio-level sequencing and resourcing decisions that reflect these dynamics.
Why do senior leaders struggle with change portfolio management?
The governance structures most organisations use for managing change are designed around individual programmes, not portfolios. Status reporting, sponsorship briefings, and investment decisions all happen at the programme level. This structure trains senior leaders to ask programme-level questions and leaves them without the visibility to engage with portfolio-level dynamics, even when they are the primary driver of adoption outcomes.
How is executive sponsorship different from change portfolio literacy?
Executive sponsorship is the active, visible support a senior leader provides to a specific change initiative. Change portfolio literacy operates above this level. It is the ability to understand the collective effect of all change initiatives across the portfolio, and to make cross-programme decisions that optimise overall adoption outcomes rather than individual programme outcomes. Both are necessary for effective enterprise change management.
What data does a change portfolio view need?
At minimum: a list of all active and planned change initiatives, the employee groups affected by each, the intensity and duration of impact, and the current adoption or readiness status. Aggregated across programmes, this data produces the cumulative load view by employee group that is the foundation of portfolio-level decision-making.
How do you develop change portfolio literacy in a senior team?
The most effective approach is repeated exposure to portfolio-level data in governance forums where decisions are made. Starting with a single portfolio view presentation, integrating change data into existing leadership forums, and making sponsor coaching a regular practice are the three interventions that change functions consistently find most effective for building executive change literacy over time.
References
Prosci. Best Practices in Change Management, 12th Edition, Executive Summary. https://empower.prosci.com/best-practices-change-management-executive-summary
Prosci. 5 Strategic Decisions for Building Organizational Change Capability in 2026. https://www.prosci.com/blog/5-strategic-decisions-for-building-organizational-change-capability
Gartner. Top Trends for Program and Portfolio Management Leaders for 2025. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6533602
Smartsheet. 2025 Project and Portfolio Management Priorities Report. https://www.smartsheet.com/content-center/inside-smartsheet/research/2025-ppm-priorities-report-key-takeaways
Managing multiple changes simultaneously is not an edge case in enterprise transformation. It is the norm. Most large organisations are running ten, twenty, or more concurrent change initiatives at any point in time. The assumptions that change practitioners rely on to manage this complexity have largely been inherited from single-initiative change management and applied wholesale to the portfolio context. Many of them are wrong.
This matters because wrong assumptions about managing multiple changes lead to specific, predictable, and expensive failures: adoption rates that fall short of targets, employee fatigue that accumulates into resistance, and programme sequencing decisions that look reasonable in isolation but create unnecessary risk in aggregate. Gartner’s research on change adoption found that only 32% of business leaders report achieving healthy change adoption by employees. The gap between change investment and change outcomes is real and persistent.
Working through seven assumptions that are widespread in change management practice, and what the evidence actually shows, offers a clearer picture of where portfolio-level management typically breaks down.
Assumption 1: If each programme is managed well, the portfolio will be managed well
This is the foundational assumption of most enterprise change management: that quality at the programme level aggregates into quality at the portfolio level. It is comforting because it is consistent with how resourcing models work: staff each programme with capable change managers, and the organisation’s change burden is handled.
The evidence suggests otherwise. A programme can have excellent communication, well-designed training, rigorous stakeholder engagement, and still fail to achieve target adoption if it lands in a quarter when the relevant employee group is simultaneously absorbing two other significant changes. The failure is not programme-level. It is portfolio-level. And it is invisible to a resourcing model that assigns one change manager per programme.
The assumption treats change capacity as infinite. Smartsheet’s 2025 Project and Portfolio Management Priorities Report found that 92% of PPM professionals struggle to adapt to workplace changes, and 71% say constant workplace shifts make it difficult to stay productive. Employee capacity to absorb change is finite and varies by group and by history. Portfolio management of change requires treating it as such.
Assumption 2: Change saturation is visible
Most change managers who have worked in large organisations have seen change saturation: the glazed look when a new initiative is announced, the rising resistance that seems disproportionate to the scale of the change, the help desk calls that stay high long after go-live. The assumption is that saturation is detectable when it occurs, and that practitioners will notice it in time to respond.
The problem is that saturation often builds slowly, through the accumulation of changes none of which individually seems overwhelming. By the time the symptoms are visible, the capacity depletion has already occurred and the immediate change is already in trouble.
Managing multiple changes effectively requires measuring cumulative load before saturation becomes visible. This means tracking what is landing on specific employee groups across the full portfolio, quantifying the aggregate impact, and identifying when load is approaching or exceeding historical absorption capacity. This cannot be done by observing individual programmes in isolation. It requires portfolio-level data.
Assumption 3: Communications from different programmes can be managed separately
In organisations running multiple concurrent programmes, each programme typically has its own communications plan, its own channels, and its own messaging cadence. The assumption is that employees can contextualise each communication separately and engage with it on its own terms.
In practice, employees receive communications from multiple change initiatives, often in the same week or the same day. The communications compete for attention. Employees develop filters, often unconsciously, that route change communications directly to low-priority status. The most sophisticated change communication strategy for any individual programme has to work within this noise environment.
Effective management of multiple changes requires cross-programme communication coordination: understanding what employees in specific groups are receiving from all programmes simultaneously, and designing communications that acknowledge the full change context rather than pretending each change exists in isolation. An employee who has received three change communications this week does not need a fourth that opens with “we are excited to announce.” They need a communication that is specific, brief, and gives them exactly what they need to act.
Assumption 4: Training is the primary adoption lever
The allocation of change budget in most programmes is disproportionately weighted toward training design and delivery. This reflects an implicit assumption that knowledge is the primary barrier to adoption: if employees understand the new system or process, they will use it.
Knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. The research on adoption failure consistently finds that employees who have completed training and understand the new way of working often do not adopt it. The barriers are motivational, structural, and environmental, not informational. They include:
Performance frameworks that still measure old behaviours
Line managers who are themselves uncertain about the change and cannot credibly reinforce it
Peer norms that make the old way of working the default
Practical friction in the new process that makes old habits easier
When managing multiple changes, this assumption is compounded because training resources are frequently the binding constraint. Programmes compete for training developer time, LMS bandwidth, and employee training hours. If training is over-weighted as an adoption lever, the resource allocation is wrong in two ways: too much investment in content development, and not enough in manager enablement, environment redesign, and performance alignment.
Assumption 5: Resistance means the change is wrong
When a change encounters significant resistance, the instinctive response is to investigate what is wrong with the change: Is the design flawed? Is the business case unclear? Are sponsors not visible enough? These are legitimate questions. But in a portfolio context, resistance is frequently not a signal about the specific change. It is a signal about cumulative load.
A team that has been through three restructures and two major system implementations in 18 months may resist a relatively modest change with intensity that is disproportionate to the change’s actual impact on their work. The resistance is real and needs to be addressed, but diagnosing it as a problem specific to the current programme leads to misguided responses: more communication, more engagement sessions, more executive visibility. What the team may actually need is a genuine pause in change load, or meaningful acknowledgement of the cumulative burden they have been carrying.
This distinction matters for how change managers advise programme sponsors. When resistance patterns look inconsistent with the scale of the change, the right question is: what is the change history for this group, and what is the current portfolio load they are carrying?
Assumption 6: The sponsor of each programme is the right governance mechanism
In single-programme change management, executive sponsorship is consistently identified as one of the strongest predictors of change success. The programme sponsor provides visibility, resources, decision-making authority, and legitimacy for the change effort.
In a portfolio context, individual programme sponsorship is necessary but not sufficient. Each programme has a sponsor who is rationally motivated to advocate for their programme’s priority. The result is a governance dynamic where each sponsor argues for their programme to go first, receive the most resource, and face the fewest constraints on timeline. Without a portfolio governance mechanism that can make cross-programme trade-offs, these competing claims default to whoever has the most political capital. This is not portfolio management; it is portfolio politics.
Effective management of multiple changes requires a governance structure that sits above the individual programme sponsor level and has the authority to make sequencing and resource allocation decisions that may disadvantage individual programmes in service of better portfolio outcomes. This structure is often a change portfolio board or a change steering committee with cross-programme scope.
Assumption 7: Progress reporting from multiple programmes gives a complete picture
Most organisations aggregate progress reporting from individual programmes into a portfolio status report: traffic lights, milestone tracking, issue logs. This gives a picture of delivery status. What it does not give is a picture of adoption status across the portfolio, cumulative change load by employee group, or the interaction effects between programmes.
A portfolio where every programme is green from a delivery perspective can still be in serious trouble from a change management perspective, if multiple programmes are delivering simultaneously to the same groups, if adoption rates across programmes are uniformly low, or if change fatigue signals are accumulating in the engagement data.
The Change Compass is designed specifically to provide the portfolio-level view that standard project reporting cannot: cumulative impact by business unit and role group, adoption trend lines across multiple initiatives, and early warning signals when load or adoption patterns indicate portfolio risk. The shift from delivery reporting to adoption intelligence is the most significant operational change in how effective change portfolio management differs from traditional programme reporting.
What managing multiple changes well actually looks like
Effective management of multiple changes is defined less by any single practice and more by a shift in orientation: from programme-centric to portfolio-centric. It asks different questions.
Not “is this programme on track?” but “what is the cumulative change load on the groups this programme targets, and how does this programme’s go-live affect their absorption capacity?”
Not “why is this group resistant?” but “what is the change history and current portfolio load for this group, and is the resistance a programme signal or a portfolio signal?”
Not “how do we communicate this change effectively?” but “how does our communication for this programme fit into the total communications these employees are receiving from all sources this month?”
These questions require portfolio visibility. They cannot be answered with programme-level data. And the answers they generate drive meaningfully better decisions about sequencing, timing, resourcing, and intervention design.
Building that portfolio visibility, through consistent impact methodology, aggregated data across programmes, and regular portfolio governance, is the single most valuable investment that enterprise change functions can make in improving their outcomes from managing multiple changes.
Frequently asked questions
Why is managing multiple changes harder than managing individual changes?
Managing multiple simultaneous changes introduces portfolio-level problems that do not exist at the programme level: change collision (multiple demands landing simultaneously on the same groups), change saturation (cumulative load depleting absorption capacity over time), and cross-programme communication noise. Each of these requires portfolio-level management, not just better single-programme execution.
What is change collision?
Change collision occurs when two or more initiatives simultaneously require significant behavioural or process changes from the same employee group, without coordination of timing or support. The demands compete for attention, reinforce each other’s resistance, and result in lower adoption for both initiatives than would have been achieved if they had been sequenced or staggered.
How do you measure the change load on an employee group?
Change load is measured by aggregating the impact assessments from all active initiatives affecting a specific employee group. This requires a consistent impact taxonomy across programmes so that impact severity can be summed and compared meaningfully. High-load groups are those where the cumulative impact score exceeds historical absorption benchmarks for similar periods of change.
What is the right governance structure for managing multiple changes?
Effective governance requires a cross-programme body, typically a change portfolio board or steering committee, with authority to make sequencing and resource allocation decisions across the portfolio. Individual programme sponsors should sit below this level for portfolio decisions. The portfolio body needs consistent data on cumulative load, adoption status, and portfolio risks to make informed decisions.
How should I prioritise changes in a portfolio?
Prioritisation should be based on three factors: strategic importance (which changes are most critical to the organisation’s strategy), adoption readiness (which employee groups have the capacity and readiness to absorb which changes at this time), and interaction effects (which sequencing minimises collision between high-impact initiatives). Data from a portfolio management platform enables all three factors to be assessed systematically rather than through negotiation alone.
What tools help with managing multiple changes?
Portfolio change management platforms such as The Change Compass aggregate impact data across programmes, visualise cumulative load by business unit and role group, and enable the portfolio governance conversations that managing multiple changes well requires. Without this kind of tooling, portfolio management at scale defaults to manual aggregation and informal coordination, neither of which is reliable at the complexity levels most large organisations face.
References
Gartner. Gartner HR Research Finds Just 32% of Business Leaders Report Achieving Healthy Change Adoption by Employees (2025). https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-07-08-gartner-hr-research-finds-just-32-percent-of-business-leaders-report-achieving-healthy-change-adoption-by-employees
Smartsheet. 2025 Project and Portfolio Management Priorities Report: Teams Are Fatigued, and Executives Need to Pay Attention. https://www.smartsheet.com/content-center/inside-smartsheet/research/2025-ppm-priorities-report-key-takeaways
WTW. Future-Proofing Work: Key Drivers and Strategies for Work Transformation (2024). https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2024/09/future-proofing-work-key-drivers-and-strategies-for-work-transformation
Prosci. The Correlation Between Change Management and Project Success. https://www.prosci.com/blog/the-correlation-between-change-management-and-project-success
Section 1: What Change Maturity Looks Like – And How Data Made It Real
Shifting from Capability Sessions to Data-Driven Change
For years, the default approach to improving organisational change maturity has been through capability sessions: workshops, training programs, and methodology deep dives. These sessions often focus on the mechanics of change management-how to assess impacts, create stakeholder maps, or run engagement activities. While valuable, they rarely move the needle on actual change maturity, because they don’t address the systemic challenge: embedding change into the rhythm of business.
This is not to say that capability sessions are inherently not valuable nor make an impact. The point is if this is the core approach to lift change maturity, you may want to re-think this approach.
In contrast, the financial services organisation we’re profiling achieved a step-change in maturity not by running more workshops, but by making change a measurable, managed discipline-driven by data. This is the essence of “what gets measured gets managed.” When change is tracked, analysed, and reported with the same rigour as financial or operational metrics, it becomes a core business focus and therefore evolving into a capability, not a project add-on.
The Hallmarks of Data-Driven Change Maturity
So, what does this maturity look like in practice?
Senior Leaders Are Personally Accountable Change metrics are embedded in the general management scorecard. Senior managers are not just sponsors; they are accountable for change outcomes, not just at a project level but within their business function. Their performance includes the outcome and the impact of change on business results. This accountability cascades throughout the organisation, with other managers following suit, creating a culture where change performance is a core management concern.
Demand for Change Expertise Is Pulled, Not Pushed Instead of the central change team “pushing” support onto the business, managers proactively seek out change expertise. They do this because the data shows them where key risks and concerns are, making change support a value-added service rather than a compliance exercise.
Operations Teams Have Line of Sight Operations teams can see all upcoming changes affecting their areas, thanks to integrated change visuals and dashboards. This transparency allows for coordinated engagement and implementation, ensuring that people capacity and readiness are managed proactively, not reactively.
Project Teams Adapt Based on People Data Project teams don’t just track milestones and budgets; they monitor leading indicators like readiness, sentiment, and adoption. Governance forums provide visibility and decision-making authority on key people risks across all change initiatives, enabling real-time adjustments to project approaches.
The Data Infrastructure That Enabled This Shift
To achieve this level of maturity, the organisation should utilise a centralised change data platform, integrating inputs from project management and operational dashboards. Data governance was established at the management level, with clear ownership and enterprise definitions. Automation and AI were used to collect, cleanse, and analyse data at scale, removing manual bottlenecks and enabling real-time insights.
Contrasting Traditional and Data-Driven Approaches
Aspect
Traditional Approach
Data-Driven Change Maturity
Senior Manager Involvement
Sponsorship, not accountability
Direct accountability, metrics-driven
Change Capability Uplift
Capability sessions, workshops
Focus on metrics improvement drove ongoing holistic capability improvement
Change Data Usage
Limited, ad hoc surveys or hearsay opinions
Integrated, real-time, enterprise-wide
Operations Visibility
Siloed, reactive
Proactive, coordinated, data-informed
Project Team Adaptation
Based on lagging indicators
Based on leading, predictive analytics
Value Realisation
Incremental, project-based
Enterprise-wide, transformative with alignment across different management levels
The Real Work Behind the Results
Some might argue that this level of data infrastructure and governance is too complex or resource-intensive. However, with modern automation and AI, much of the data collection, cleansing, and analysis can be streamlined. The initial investment is quickly offset by the value unlocked-both in risk mitigation and in the ability to deliver change at scale, with greater precision and impact.
This is what change maturity looks like when it’s powered by data. It’s not about more workshops; it’s about making change visible, accountable, and actionable at every level of the organisation. The next section will explore how this approach transforms decision-making-from focusing on cost and timelines to prioritising people and value.
Section 2: From Cost and Timelines to People and Value – How Data Transforms Change Implementation
The Persistent Focus on Cost and Timelines
For decades, change and transformation decisions in large organisations have been anchored in two primary considerations: cost and project timelines. Budgets are scrutinised, schedules are tracked, and success is often measured by whether a project was delivered on time and within budget. While these are important, they are insufficient for delivering sustainable, people-centric change. By focusing narrowly on these factors, organisations risk overlooking the most critical element: the people who must adopt and sustain the change.
Injecting the People Element-Through Data
A growing number of organisations are recognising that change cannot be managed by these numbers alone. The financial services organisation in this case study made a deliberate shift: they began injecting people data into every change decision. This meant that, alongside cost and timeline metrics, leaders and project teams had access to real-time insights on people impacts and capacity/readiness risks.
These people metrics were not afterthoughts-they were integrated into the same dashboards and governance forums as financial and operational data. This integration enabled a more holistic view of change, allowing leaders to make informed decisions that balanced the needs of the business with the realities of its workforce.
How People Data Drives Better Decisions
Proactive Risk Management By monitoring leading indicators such as readiness and sentiment, project teams could identify potential risks before they became issues. For example, a drop in readiness scores could trigger targeted engagement activities, preventing delays and increasing the likelihood of successful adoption.
Dynamic Resource Allocation Data on people capacity allowed operations teams to anticipate and manage the impact of multiple concurrent changes. This meant that resources could be allocated more effectively, reducing the risk of change fatigue and ensuring that teams were not overwhelmed.
Evidence-Based Adjustments Project approaches were no longer set in stone. Teams could tweak their strategies based on real-time feedback, ensuring that change initiatives remained aligned with the needs and capabilities of the workforce. Often this is done in advance of any governance decision making as teams could already see potential risks and opportunities through data.
Governance That Delivers Value Governance forums used people data to prioritise initiatives, allocate resources, and escalate risks. This meant that decisions were made with a clear understanding of both the financial and human implications of change.
The Role of AI and Automation
The integration of people data into change management was made possible by advances in AI and automation. These technologies enabled the organisation to collect, analyse, and visualise data at scale, removing the manual burden and providing actionable insights in real time. The value of AI and automation was not just in saving a few hours on impact assessments-it was in providing the analytical horsepower to identify patterns, predict risks, and optimise change delivery across the enterprise.
Moving Beyond Incremental Value
By embedding people data into the heart of change decision-making, the organisation was able to move beyond incremental improvements. Instead of talking about saving a few thousand dollars on a single project, they unlocked tens of millions in enterprise value by delivering change that was adopted, sustained, and embedded across the business.
The New Decision-Making Framework
Decision Factor
Traditional Approach
Data-Driven Approach
Cost
Primary focus
Balanced with people and value
Timelines
Primary focus
Balanced with people and value
People Readiness
Secondary, ad hoc
Primary, real-time, data-driven
Sentiment/Adoption
Rarely measured
Continuously monitored
Resource Allocation
Based on project needs
Based on overall people capacity and readiness, so balancing not just project resources but impacted business resources
Governance
Focused on milestones
Focused on both financial and people goals
The Result: Change That Delivers Value
The shift to data-driven, people-centric change management transformed the organisation’s ability to deliver value. Change was no longer a series of isolated projects, but a core business capability-managed, measured, and continuously improved. The next section will explore how this approach can be scaled and sustained, and what it means for the future of change and transformation in large organisations.
Section 3: Scaling and Sustaining Change Maturity – The Future of Transformation
The Myth of Overwhelm: Practical Steps to Sustainable Change Maturity
For many organisations, the prospect of building and maintaining a data-driven change maturity model can seem daunting. The common perception is that it requires an overwhelming investment in new tools, processes, and training-one that may not be justified by the returns. However, the experience of this financial services company demonstrates that, while focused effort is required, the process does not have to be overwhelming-especially with the right use of experimentation, ongoing tweaks, automation and AI.
Automation: The Great Enabler Much of the heavy lifting in data collection, cleansing, and reporting can now be automated. Change impact assessments, sentiment tracking, and readiness surveys can be scheduled, administered, and analysed with minimal manual intervention. This frees up change professionals to focus on interpretation, action, and continuous improvement rather than data wrangling.
AI: Unlocking Predictive Power AI tools can analyse patterns across multiple change initiatives, predict adoption risks, and recommend interventions before issues arise. This predictive capability allows organisations to be proactive rather than reactive, reducing the risk of failed change and increasing the speed of value realisation.
Scalable Governance By embedding change metrics into existing governance structures-such as business reviews, risk committees, and leadership forums-the organisation ensures that change maturity is not a one-off project but an ongoing discipline. This integration makes it easier to scale across divisions, regions, and business units.
Continuous Experimentation and Adaptation
A critical aspect of scaling and sustaining change maturity is the willingness to experiment, learn, and iterate. Early adoption of data-driven change management should be approached with a mindset of ongoing refinement. For example, executive alignment is often achieved not in a single meeting, but through a series of tailored discussions where dashboards and metrics are gradually refined to match leadership priorities and language. Testing different dashboard designs-such as visualisations, drill-down capabilities, or alert mechanisms-allows teams to identify what best supports decision-making at each level of the organisation.
Similarly, designing change decision-making forums as iterative, rather than static, processes ensures that the right data is surfaced at the right time, and that governance structures evolve as the organisation’s change maturity grows. By embracing a culture of experimentation and continuous improvement, organisations can ensure their change management practices remain relevant, effective, and aligned with both business and people objectives.
From Thousands to Millions: The Real Value of Data-Driven Change
The ultimate value of this approach is not measured in hours saved or individual project successes. It is measured in the ability to deliver change at scale, with precision, and with confidence that people will adopt and sustain the new ways of working. This is what ultimately drives benefit realisation. In this financial services organisation, the shift from ad hoc, project-based change to an enterprise-wide, data-driven discipline unlocked tens of millions in value-far beyond the incremental savings of traditional approaches.
Risk Mitigation By identifying and addressing people risks early, the organisation avoided costly delays, rework, and failed implementations.
Faster Value Realisation Real-time data enabled faster, more informed decision-making, accelerating the time to value for major initiatives.
Sustainable Adoption Continuous monitoring and adjustment ensured that changes were not just implemented, but embedded and sustained over time.
Are You Ready to 10-100X the Value of Change?
For experienced change and transformation practitioners, the question is no longer whether data-driven change maturity is possible-it is whether you are ready to embrace it. The tools, technologies, and methodologies are available. The competitive advantage lies in how you use them-making change visible, accountable, and actionable at every level of the organisation.
Lift the Game Move beyond incremental improvements and unlock the full potential of change as a lever for enterprise performance.
Lead the Shift Champion the integration of people data into every change decision, and demonstrate the value of a disciplined, data-driven approach.
Scale and Sustain Use automation and AI to make change maturity a scalable, sustainable capability-not just a project or initiative.
The Future Is Now
The future of change and transformation is here. It is data-driven, people-centric, and value-focused. It is about making change a core business discipline-managed, measured, and continuously improved. Are you ready to take the leap and 10-100X the value that change delivers in your organisation?
Managing multiple changes is not a new phenomenon for a lot of organisations. However, the value of managing change at a portfolio level is not clear for a lot of leaders. This is a review of academic research on the value of managing multiple change initiatives across an organisation (change portfolio management), with specific focus on the impact of change on people and tangible business benefits. Drawing from peer-reviewed academic sources, this report identifies quantifiable business benefits and performance outcomes associated with effective change portfolio management.
Academic research consistently demonstrates that organisations face significant challenges when implementing multiple change initiatives simultaneously. However, organisations that develop effective change portfolio management capabilities achieve substantially better outcomes, including:
1. Productivity Improvements: Firms with more complex organisational capabilities show “considerably increased firm performance in terms of labour productivity” (Costa et al., 2023).
2. Competitive Advantage: Organisations with better change management capabilities gain strategic advantages over competitors with lower change capacity (Heckmann et al., 2016).
3. Organisational Resilience: Organisations with higher change capacity demonstrate greater resilience during periods of disruption (Mladenova, 2022).
This report synthesizes academic research to provide evidence-based insights on the tangible business benefits of effective change portfolio management.
Background
Organisations today face unprecedented pressure to implement multiple simultaneous changes. Technological disruption, competitive pressures, and evolving customer expectations drive the need for continuous transformation. However, academic research reveals that implementing multiple change initiatives simultaneously creates significant challenges for both individuals and organisations.
Here lies the dilemma. Most organisations are implementing multiple change initiatives. However, nearly all methodologies and change management concepts are only focused on one singular initiative been executed at a time.
Here we examine peer-reviewed academic research on how change portfolio management affects organisational outcomes and quantifies the tangible business benefits of effective change management. It focuses specifically on the value of effectively managing multiple change initiatives across the organisation and identifies measurable business benefits supported by scholarly evidence.
Journals reviewed
This review synthesizes findings from peer-reviewed academic journals including:
– Journal of Business Research
– SAGE Journals
– Industrial and Corporate Change (Oxford Academic)
– Cogent Business & Management
– Administrative Sciences
– Organisational Dynamics
The research focuses on empirical studies that quantify the relationship between change management approaches and business outcomes. Particular attention was given to studies that provide statistical evidence of the impact of change portfolio management on organisational performance.
Change Capacity Limitations: Academic Evidence
The Challenge of Multiple Change Initiatives
Academic research consistently demonstrates that organisations struggle to implement multiple change initiatives simultaneously. Mladenova (2022) found that “multiple and overlapping change initiatives become the norm rather than an exception, thus exert additional pressure on organisations.” Her research identified that when organisations face “increasing levels of unpredictability and need to adapt to fast environmental shifts, linear causal models to plan and implement changes become harder to follow.” However, the bulk of popular change management concepts are linear in nature.
Organisational Capacity for Change
Heckmann et al. (2016) define Organisational Capacity for Change (OCC) as “the capacity of an organisation to institutionalize and manage change on an ongoing basis.” Their empirical research found that “an organisation’s capacity for change associates positively with the performance of its change projects.”
Importantly, the study found that “higher levels of technological turbulence weaken” the relationship between organisational capacity for change and project performance. This suggests that organisations face even greater challenges managing multiple changes during periods of technological disruption.
Adna and Sukoco (2020) studied 313 middle managers and their followers and found that “organisational capacity for change mediates the influence of managerial cognitive capabilities on organisational performance.” Their research demonstrated that organisations need coordinated portfolio approaches to effectively manage multiple changes. Having the right routines also support continuous and multiple changes.
Tangible Business Benefits: Academic Evidence
Success Rate
Academic research provides clear evidence that effective change portfolio management significantly improves success rates:
– Improved Project Performance: Heckmann et al. (2016) found that “an organisation’s capacity for change associates positively with the performance of its change projects” in their empirical study of 134 German firms.
Financial Performance Improvements
Academic research demonstrates measurable financial benefits from effective change portfolio management:
– Productivity Gains: Costa et al. (2023) empirically demonstrated that firms with more complex organisational capabilities showed “considerably increases firm performance in terms of labor productivity.” Their study of Italian firms identified that “Complex” organisations (those with highest organisational capabilities) demonstrated superior productivity metrics compared to firms with less developed capabilities.
– Cost Avoidance: Errida and Lotfi (2021) systematic review of literature identified that failed change initiatives result in both direct costs (resources invested) and indirect costs (lost productivity).
– Resource Utilization Efficiency: Rousseau and ten Have (2022) found that organisations using evidence-based change management practices showed improved change-related decision quality, leading to better use of resources during change implementation.
Competitive Advantage
Academic research identifies clear competitive advantages from effective change portfolio management:
– Strategic Adaptability: Heckmann et al. (2016) established that organisations with better change management capabilities gain strategic advantages over competitors with lower change capacity. Their research demonstrated that organisations with higher change capacity are better positioned to implement future strategic changes.
– Innovation Implementation: Costa et al. (2023) demonstrated that firms with more complex organisational capabilities showed greater ability to innovate and adapt to market changes. Their research found that “higher organisational complexity—captured by the range and variety of actions put in place by firms—is thus reflected in better performance.”
– Market Responsiveness: Mladenova (2022) found that organisations with higher change capacity can better handle “multiple and overlapping change initiatives” which have “become the norm rather than an exception.” The research identified that organisations with higher change capacity demonstrate superior market responsiveness.
Human Capital Benefits
Academic research shows significant human capital benefits from effective change portfolio management:
– Employee Engagement: Mladenova (2022) found that organisations implementing multiple simultaneous changes without adequate change capacity experience diminishing returns partly due to employee disengagement. Organisations with effective change portfolio management maintain higher levels of employee engagement during periods of change.
– Talent Retention: Heckmann et al. (2016) found that organisations with higher change capacity experience lower turnover during periods of change. Their research demonstrated that effective change portfolio management contributes to organisational stability and talent retention.
– Capability Development: Costa et al. (2023) found that organisations with more complex capabilities develop stronger human capital over time. Their research demonstrated that investment in organisational capabilities creates a foundation for future performance improvements.
Organisational Performance Taxonomy
Costa et al. (2023) identified four clusters of firms based on organisational capabilities, providing a framework for understanding the relationship between change capabilities and performance. The following descriptions are inferred from the study and not actual quoted descriptions.
1. Essential (basic capabilities): Organisations with minimal change management capabilities that struggle with implementing multiple changes.
2. Managerial (moderate capabilities): Organisations with some change management capabilities but limited coordination across initiatives.
3. Interdependent (advanced capabilities): Organisations with developed change management capabilities and coordination across initiatives.
4. Complex (highest capabilities): Organisations with capabilities that can effectively implement multiple and complex changes. These tend to have experienced a range of ‘technological-organisational’ changes.
Their research demonstrated that firms in the Complex and Interdependent clusters showed significantly higher performance metrics than those in the Essential and Managerial clusters. This provides a framework for measuring organisational capability development and its impact on performance.
Recommendations from Academic Research
Academic research suggests several evidence-based approaches to improve change portfolio management:
1. Invest in Change Capacity: Heckmann et al. (2016) recommend that “companies should invest in their capacities for change, particularly in the HRM area” to build change capacity. Their research demonstrated that investment in change capacity is a strategic business decision with measurable returns.
2. Develop Integrated Approaches: Errida and Lotfi (2021) found that “the use of a single model or few models is not sufficient to cover various change situations” and that “integrating existing models may lead to an integrated understanding of how to ensure successful organisational change.”
3. Build on Positive Experiences: Heckmann et al. (2016) found that “positive experiences in previous change projects increase OCC (Organisational Capacity for Change).” Their research demonstrated that successful change experiences create a virtuous cycle that builds change capacity over time.
4. Use Evidence-Based Practices: Rousseau and ten Have (2022) found that “planned change is more likely to succeed when using science-informed practices” and that “regular use of four sources of evidence (scientific, organisational, stakeholder, and practitioner experience) improve the quality of change-related decisions.”
Academic Evidence for Change Portfolio Management
The academic research reviewed in this report provides clear evidence that managing multiple change initiatives as a portfolio delivers significant business benefits compared to uncoordinated change approaches.
Organisations that effectively manage their change portfolio can expect:
3. Human Capital Benefits: Improved employee engagement, talent retention, and capability development.
4. Long-term Performance: Greater organisational resilience and sustainable growth.
Whilst there is not a lot of research currently in the newly emerging field of change portfolio management, overall academic evidence strongly supports the value of change portfolio management practices as a strategic approach to organisational transformation.
References
Adna, B. E., & Sukoco, B. M. (2020). Managerial cognitive capabilities, organisational capacity for change, and performance: The moderating effect of social capital. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1843310
Costa, S., De Santis, S., Dosi, G., Monducci, R., Sbardella, A., & Virgillito, M. E. (2023). From organisational capabilities to corporate performances: at the roots of productivity slowdown. Industrial and Corporate Change, 32(6), 1217-1244. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtad030
Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organisational change management success: Literature review and case study. SAGE Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211016273
Heckmann, N., Steger, T., & Dowling, M. (2016). Organisational capacity for change, change experience, and change project performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 777-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.012
Mladenova, I. (2022). Relation between Organisational Capacity for Change and Readiness for Change. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040135
Rousseau, D. M., & ten Have, S. (2022). Evidence-based change management. Organisational Dynamics, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2022.100899
