Enterprise change management represents a fundamental evolution beyond traditional project-based change approaches. Rather than treating change as a series of isolated initiatives, enterprise change management (ECM) establishes systematic change capability across the entire organisation. According to Prosci’s research, ECM is defined as “the systematic deployment of change management skills, tools and processes throughout an organisation”. Beyond this limited interpretation, ECM is about embedding a system of change capabilities across the organisation to achieve business results.
This strategic approach transforms how organisations build, deploy, and sustain change capability. Unlike project-level change management that focuses on specific initiatives, ECM creates an organisational competency that enables rapid, effective response to changing business conditions whilst maintaining operational performance.
The core distinction lies in scope and integration. Traditional change management applies methodologies to individual projects or departments. Enterprise change management, however, embeds change capability into the organisational fabric itself, creating what researchers describe as “a strategic capability that enables the organisation to be agile, change ready and responsive to marketplace changes”.
The three levels of enterprise change capability
ECM operates across three integrated levels, each requiring different capabilities and governance structures. Research shows that organisations achieve sustainable transformation when they address all three levels systematically.
Individual level focuses on building personal change competency throughout the workforce. This means employees at all levels develop skills in navigating uncertainty, adapting to new processes, and contributing positively to transformation efforts. The goal is creating a change-ready workforce rather than relying on external change resources for each initiative.
Project level applies structured change management to specific initiatives whilst connecting them to broader organisational capabilities. Rather than treating each project as completely distinct, mature organisations leverage shared frameworks, common language, and integrated measurement systems that compound effectiveness across initiatives.
Enterprise level represents the systematic integration of change capability into organisational strategy, culture, and operations. At this level, change management becomes a core business competency that enables strategic agility and competitive advantage.
How enterprise change management differs from traditional approaches
The differences between traditional project-based change management and enterprise approaches are substantial and measurable. Traditional change management focuses on specific projects or departments, often operating in isolation with limited coordination across initiatives. The Project Management Office (PMO) may coordinate initiatives from a project resourcing or technical release perspective, but not from a people change perspective.
Scope of influence represents the most significant difference. Project-level change management targets only those directly impacted by a specific initiative, using output-based indicators like training completion rates or survey participation. Enterprise change management, however, builds organisational capability that scales across multiple initiatives simultaneously.
Strategic integration distinguishes mature ECM approaches from tactical project applications. Research from APMG International shows that ECM aligns all change initiatives with strategic goals, ensuring consistency and reducing confusion whilst increasing efficiency. This contrasts with project-specific approaches where different initiatives may define value differently, creating inconsistent outcomes.
Sustainability and learning transfer become possible only through enterprise approaches. Traditional project-based change management typically loses capability when projects end, requiring organisations to rebuild change capacity repeatedly. ECM creates persistent organisational learning that compounds across initiatives.
The research is clear about the performance implications. According to studies of enterprise versus traditional approaches, organisations implementing ECM report significantly higher success rates because “being a model that surrounds and sustains individual projects by ‘wrapping’ them into an organisation-wide view, ECM enables that aspect of change that is sometimes missing in other approaches: growth of the change capability itself”.
The three dimensions of enterprise change management
Effective ECM requires development across three interconnected dimensions, each contributing to overall organisational change capability.
Consistency involves applying common change management methods across all projects and initiatives. This creates organisational efficiency by eliminating the need to repeatedly train people on different methodologies, using the same language to avoid confusion and more effective from a capability development perspective. More importantly, consistency enables coordination across concurrent changes, reducing conflicts and competing demands on stakeholders.
Competency focuses on building and strengthening change management skills at every organisational level. This goes beyond training programs to encompass leadership competency from supervisors to senior executives. Research shows that sustainable ECM requires “a leadership competency at all levels of the organisation”, not just designated change professionals.
Strategic capability elevates change management to a key competency within business strategy itself. At this level, change management becomes integral to how the organisation plans, makes decisions, and executes strategic initiatives. This represents the most mature form of ECM, where change capability enables competitive advantage.
Why enterprise change management matters now
Today’s business environment demands more sophisticated approaches to managing change. Research indicates that organisations face unprecedented volumes of concurrent transformation initiatives, with 73% reporting being near, at, or beyond the point of change saturation. Traditional project-by-project approaches cannot effectively manage this complexity.
The velocity of change has also increased dramatically. Markets demand faster response to competitive threats and opportunities. Organisations with mature ECM capability can “respond more quickly to market dynamics because they don’t need to build change capacity from scratch for each new initiative”. They already have the frameworks, skills, and governance structures needed for rapid, effective transformation.
The financial implications are substantial. Organisations with effective ECM report higher success rates, faster implementation timelines, and sustained adoption of new capabilities. As the Change Management Institute’s research demonstrates, building enterprise-wide change maturity enables organisations to achieve “level 3 or 4 of change management maturity, characterised by consistent approaches, embedded processes, application-focused learning, coaching support, and leadership-led change”.
Enterprise change management frameworks and processes
The Change Management Institute’s integrated approach
The Change Management Institute (CMI) has developed one of the most comprehensive frameworks for building enterprise change capability through their integrated approach to organisational change maturity. The CMI framework recognises that sustainable enterprise change management requires systematic development across three core domains that work together synergistically.
Project Change Management represents the foundation level, focusing on building consistent change management capability at the individual project level. This domain ensures organisations can effectively manage the people side of change for specific initiatives whilst building transferable skills and methodologies that scale across the enterprise.
Business Change Readiness addresses the organisational capability to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to change demands. This domain focuses on developing the cultural readiness, resource allocation, and strategic alignment necessary for sustained transformation capability.
Strategic Change Leadership represents the most mature level, where change management becomes integrated into strategic planning, decision-making, and organisational culture. At this level, change capability enables competitive advantage and strategic agility.
The CMI framework differs significantly from project-specific approaches because it explicitly builds organisational capability that persists beyond individual initiatives. Research shows that organisations achieving maturity across all three domains can respond more quickly to market dynamics because they don’t need to rebuild change capacity for each new initiative.
The CMI Change Practice Framework: a structured process approach
The Change Management Institute’s Change Practice Framework provides a practical process model for implementing enterprise change management through four integrated dimensions: Define, Analyse, Co-design, and Refine. This circular, iterative process ensures continuous improvement and adaptation whilst maintaining focus on sustainable outcomes.
Define establishes the vision for change, benefits mapping, change approach and roadmap, desired outcomes, and target timeframes. At the enterprise level, this phase ensures alignment between individual changes and broader organisational strategy whilst considering change portfolio impacts and resource allocation.
Analyse encompasses change impacts assessment, success indicators development, stakeholder identification, change maturity evaluation, change capability assessment, change readiness analysis, and determining the degree and scale of change required. This comprehensive analysis enables organisations to understand not just what needs to change, but the organisational capacity and capability required for success.
Co-design and Engage focuses on developing communication and engagement strategies, co-designed solutions, organisational redesign approaches, new ways of working, implementation planning, and risk mitigation strategies. The co-design approach ensures stakeholder involvement and ownership whilst building internal capability for future changes.
Align and Refine includes leadership coaching, tracking success criteria, real-time problem solving, testing and refining approaches, and organisational realignment activities. This phase ensures sustainable adoption whilst capturing learning that enhances future change capability.
Competency-based framework implementation
The CMI Change Manager Competency Models provide the foundation for building individual and organisational capability across three progressive levels: Foundation, Specialist, and Master. These models identify specific behavioural competencies required for success at each level, creating clear development pathways for building enterprise change capability.
Foundation level competencies focus on understanding change principles, supporting change implementation, and developing basic skills in impact assessment, communication, and project management. Foundation practitioners provide essential support whilst building capabilities that prepare them for more complex roles.
Specialist level competencies encompass strategic thinking, coaching for change, advanced influencing skills, and the ability to assess and respond to complex organisational dynamics. Specialist practitioners can lead change initiatives whilst contributing to broader organisational change capability development.
Master level competencies include advanced strategic thinking, organisational diagnosis, change leadership across multiple initiatives, and the ability to develop change capability in others. Master practitioners drive enterprise-wide change capability whilst influencing organisational culture and strategic decision-making.
The competency models address eleven core skill areas that span technical change management capabilities and interpersonal effectiveness skills. Research shows that organisations using competency-based approaches to building change capability achieve higher success rates and sustained adoption because they develop comprehensive capability rather than focusing solely on tools and processes.
Maturity-based progression framework
Enterprise change management requires systematic progression through defined maturity levels. The CMI framework aligns with broader industry recognition that organisations must develop through predictable stages to achieve sustainable change capability.
Level 1 maturity represents ad-hoc or absent change management where organisations apply change approaches reactively and inconsistently. Most organisations begin at this level, with change management applied only when projects encounter resistance or difficulties.
Level 2 maturity involves isolated project applications where change management is recognised as valuable but applied inconsistently across initiatives. Organisations at this level may achieve project-specific success but don’t build enterprise capability.
Level 3 maturity represents the beginning of enterprise approaches, with defined processes and consistent application across projects. Organisations at this level have established change management methodologies and are building internal capability systematically.
Level 4 maturity involves organisational standards where change management is embedded in project governance and business processes. Organisations achieve consistent application whilst building change leadership capability across multiple levels.
Level 5 maturity represents organisational competency where change management becomes part of organisational culture and strategic capability. At this level, change management enables sustained competitive advantage and strategic agility.
Integrating frameworks for enterprise implementation
Successful enterprise change management requires integration across multiple framework elements rather than applying individual components in isolation. The most effective implementations combine the CMI maturity progression with competency development and structured process application.
Governance integration connects change portfolio management with strategic planning cycles, ensuring change investments align with business priorities whilst maintaining organisational change capacity. This requires governance structures that can coordinate across multiple concurrent initiatives whilst building sustainable capability.
Learning integration ensures insights from individual changes enhance organisational capability rather than remaining project-specific knowledge. Mature organisations establish learning systems that capture and transfer change capability across initiatives and business units.
Cultural integration embeds change management principles into organisational culture, making change capability a shared competency rather than specialist expertise. This requires leadership development, communication strategies, and recognition systems that reinforce change-positive behaviours and capabilities.
Research demonstrates that organisations implementing integrated approaches achieve significantly higher success rates than those focusing on individual framework components. The integration enables compound benefits where each change initiative strengthens organisational capability for subsequent transformations.
Implementing enterprise change management: measurement, networks, and business integration
Successful enterprise change management requires structured measurement approaches that go beyond traditional project metrics. Unlike project-level success indicators such as training completion rates or survey scores, enterprise measurement focuses on organisational capability development, portfolio-level performance, and strategic impact on business outcomes.
Leading indicators of enterprise change capability include change readiness assessments across business units, change leadership competency scores, and business operational performance linked to change impacts. These predictive measures enable organisations to identify capability gaps before they impact transformation outcomes. Research shows that organisations tracking leading indicators achieve significantly higher success rates because they can address capability deficits proactively rather than reactively.
Portfolio-level metrics provide visibility into the collective impact of change initiatives rather than individual project success. These include change portfolio health scores, resource utilisation across concurrent changes, and stakeholder engagement effectiveness across multiple initiatives. Advanced organisations track change saturation levels, ensuring they don’t exceed organisational capacity to absorb transformation.
Business performance integration represents the most strategic measurement approach, connecting change management effectiveness directly to operational and financial outcomes. This includes metrics such as productivity maintenance during transformation, revenue impact from improved adoption rates, and competitive advantage gained through superior change capability. Academic research demonstrates that organisations integrating change metrics with business performance measurement achieve compound benefits from their transformation investments.
The key insight is that enterprise measurement requires different analytical frameworks than project-level assessment. Enterprise metrics focus on building sustainable capability rather than achieving specific deliverables, creating compound value that increases over successive transformations.
Building enterprise change champion networks
Enterprise change management success depends heavily on distributed leadership through structured change champion networks. Unlike traditional approaches that rely on designated change professionals, enterprise approaches develop change capability throughout the organisational structure, creating what researchers describe as “embedded change capacity”.
Strategic network design requires careful consideration of organisational structure, culture, and change demands. The most effective networks combine formal authority relationships with informal influence patterns, ensuring change champions have both positional credibility and peer respect across different organisational layers. Research shows that well-designed champion networks increase adoption rates by 15-25 percentage points.
Bi-directional communication channels enable both top-down strategic alignment and bottom-up insight gathering. Champion networks serve as early warning systems for emerging resistance, resource constraints, and implementation challenges. They also provide channels for sharing success stories and best practices across business units, creating organisational learning that compounds across initiatives.
Competency development within networks ensures change champions have the skills needed for success whilst building organisational capability for future changes. This includes training in change principles, coaching techniques, communication strategies, and problem-solving approaches. The Change Management Institute’s research emphasises that sustainable champion networks require structured competency development rather than relying solely on enthusiasm and goodwill.
Successful champion networks become self-reinforcing systems that strengthen with use. Each change initiative provides opportunities for champions to develop skills, build relationships, and enhance credibility, creating increasing capability for subsequent transformations.
Integrating change management with business operations
The most mature enterprise change management approaches seamlessly integrate change capability with standard business operations rather than treating change as separate organisational function. This integration creates sustainable capability whilst reducing the administrative overhead associated with parallel change management processes.
Business planning integration ensures change capacity planning becomes part of standard strategic and operational planning cycles. This includes assessing change demands during annual planning, allocating change resources based on business priorities, and sequencing initiatives to optimise organisational capacity utilisation. Research demonstrates that organisations integrating change planning with business planning achieve 20-30% better resource efficiency compared to separate planning approaches.
Performance management integration embeds change-related objectives and competencies into standard performance evaluation and development processes. This includes change leadership expectations for managers, change collaboration requirements for individual contributors, and change capability development objectives across all roles. Integration ensures change capability development receives ongoing attention rather than episodic focus during transformation initiatives.
Governance structure integration connects change portfolio management with strategic decision-making processes, ensuring change investments align with business priorities whilst maintaining organisational capacity for transformation. This requires governance bodies with authority to sequence changes, allocate resources, and escalate systemic issues that individual projects cannot resolve.
Real-world success through data-driven enterprise change management
Leading organisations are achieving measurable business value through a structured data-driven approaches to enterprise change management. The Change Compass platform exemplifies this evolution, enabling organisations to embed change management within general business management rather than treating it as separate organisational function. Case Study 4.
A major global financial services corporation transformed their approach to change management by integrating change metrics with standard business reporting. Within one year, they achieved remarkable results: leadership began prioritising change management as part of strategic oversight, business leaders increasingly requested proactive change support, and the organisation developed consistent change management practices across previously disconnected business units. Case Study 4.
The transformation occurred through strategic data integration rather than additional bureaucracy. By partnering with their Business Intelligence team and utilising Change Compass data capabilities, the corporation embedded change management insights into routine business tracking, making change visibility part of standard leadership decision-making processes.
The shift from “push” to “pull” model represents a fundamental change in how organisations approach change support. Rather than change teams offering services that business leaders may or may not utilise, leaders began actively seeking change management support as they recognised its impact on business performance. This cultural shift enhanced change management maturity across the enterprise whilst improving transformation outcomes. Case Study 2.
Enhanced decision-making through integrated reporting enabled leaders to understand the connection between change management effectiveness and business performance. By combining operational metrics with change management insights, executives could make more informed decisions about resource allocation, timing, and implementation approaches. The results included measurable improvements in project delivery timelines, reduced implementation costs, and sustained adoption of new capabilities.
Capability development through data insights became possible when organisations could track change management effectiveness over time and identify patterns that enhanced future performance. Rather than relying on subjective assessments or anecdotal evidence, mature organisations use data analytics to understand which change approaches work best in their specific context, enabling continuous improvement in change capability. Case Study 3.
The strategic value of integrated change management platforms
Modern enterprise change management requires sophisticated technology tools that can integrate with existing business systems whilst providing change-specific analytics and insights to augment what is currently missing. The Change Compass platform demonstrates how organisations can achieve enterprise change management maturity through strategic technology implementation rather than organisational restructuring.
Data integration capabilities enable organisations to connect change management metrics with business performance indicators, creating comprehensive dashboards that support strategic decision-making. This integration provides leaders with real-time visibility into change portfolio health, resource utilisation, and business impact, enabling proactive management rather than reactive problem-solving.
Predictive analytics for change planning help organisations anticipate change capacity requirements, identify potential resource conflicts, and optimise transformation sequencing. By analysing historical change data alongside business planning information, organisations can make more informed decisions about when to launch initiatives, how to allocate resources, and where to focus capability development efforts.
Competency tracking and development becomes systematic when organisations can monitor change management skills across the enterprise whilst identifying development needs and tracking progress over time. This creates targeted capability building that addresses specific organisational gaps rather than generic training approaches.
Building your enterprise change management capability
Enterprise change management represents one of the most significant opportunities for competitive advantage in today’s rapidly changing business environment. Organisations that build systematic change capability position themselves to respond more quickly to market dynamics, implement strategic initiatives more effectively, and sustain transformation outcomes over time.
The evidence is compelling: enterprise change management delivers measurable ROI through improved project success rates, reduced implementation costs, faster time-to-value, and sustained adoption of new capabilities. More importantly, organisations with mature change capability can pursue strategic opportunities that competitors cannot effectively implement.
The Change Compass platform empowers organisations to accelerate their journey toward enterprise change management maturity through data-driven insights, integrated measurement, and systematic capability development. The Change Compass enables transformation through strategic enhancement of existing processes and systems.
Leading organisations are already experiencing the benefits: enhanced leadership decision-making through integrated change and business metrics, improved resource efficiency through portfolio-level visibility, and sustained capability development through systematic tracking and analytics. These results create compound value that increases with each transformation initiative.
The opportunity for competitive advantage through superior change capability has never been greater. Market conditions demand rapid response to changing customer needs, competitive threats, and regulatory requirements. Organisations with enterprise change management capability can adapt faster, implement more effectively, and sustain transformation outcomes that create lasting competitive advantage.
Ready to transform your organisation’s change capability and start delivering measurable business value through enterprise change management? Discover how The Change Compass can help you build the data-driven change capability your organisation needs to thrive in today’s dynamic business environment.
Managing multiple change initiatives is not a new concept nor is it new to organizations. What is perhaps ‘newer’ is how change practitioners are using data to manage multiple changes. Change practitioners that manage a portfolio of initiatives used to focus on building capability in various arenas from employee capability, leadership capability, through to the effectiveness of engagement and learning channels. However, using business and change management data to help companies is just as critical.
Is change management becoming more important?
Yes, change management is increasingly vital in today’s fast-paced business environment. Organizations face constant shifts in technology, market demands, and workforce dynamics, which impact their business processes. Effectively managing these changes helps minimize resistance, enhances employee engagement, and ensures smoother transitions, ultimately leading to improved performance and sustainability in a competitive landscape.
In this article, we will explore the top five challenges associated with the current approaches to managing multiple change initiatives, including the implementation of the change due to lack of resources and insufficient resources. We explore these common approaches and critique key challenges, along with alternatives.
Change heatmaps have become a popular tool for classifying departments based on the impact of a change initiative. However, two key issues often arise with this approach: the oversimplification of the traffic light classification system and the lack of granularity at the department level.
One of the most common ways to visually depict the impact of multiple changes is to use the heatmap. This is normally using a 3-point rating system (high, medium, low) to determine the level of impact across the various departments across the organisation. Whilst the rating process is an easy exercise, there are some very serious challenges:
Even for the 3 level rating system the change practitioner may be challenged with how this rating is determined and what it is based on. Not every team within the same department may be equally impacted
There may be different impacts for different roles within the same team and department
The impact may be different depending on whether the focus is on employees, customers, process, system or partner
Typically most use a monthly rating scale. However, for busy organisations with lots of changes, the change volume may go up and down within the same month. With one rating it oversimplifies what actually happens throughout the month
With only 3 levels of ratings, a lot of departments end up having the same rating level for months, meaning there is not much they can do with this data.
In Summary, the summarised monthly rating for one department indicates medium-level change. But at what time of the month, for what role, for what team, and for what type of impact?
The below is an example of a change heatmap from the University of California, Berkeley.
a. Traffic Light Classification Too Simplistic:
The traditional red, yellow, and green traffic light system used in change heatmaps is a simple way to communicate the status of a department’s readiness for change. However, this simplicity can be misleading. Red may indicate a problem, but it does not provide insights into the nature or severity of the issue. Likewise, green may suggest readiness, but it might hide underlying complexities or dependencies.
Even for the 3 level rating system the change practitioner may be challenged with how this rating is determined and what fact it is based on. Also, the impact may be different depending on whether the focus is on employees, customers, process, system or partner. Typically most use a monthly rating scale. However, for busy organisations with lots of changes, the change volume may go up and down within the same month. With one rating it oversimplifies what actually happens throughout the month. Even if the singular departmental rating is split into rating by initiative, this does not provide an aggregate department-level rating that is aggregated based on logic.
To overcome this challenge, organizations need a more nuanced classification system that takes into account the specific issues within each category. This could involve incorporating additional colours or using a numerical scale to better represent the diversity and complexity of challenges within each department.
b. Department Level Not Granular Enough:
While change heatmaps provide a high-level overview, they often lack the granularity required to understand the specific challenges within each department. Different teams within a department may be impacted differently, and a broad classification may not capture these variations.
To address this issue, organizations should consider adopting a more detailed classification system that breaks down each department into its constituent parts. This granular approach allows for a more targeted and effective change management strategy, addressing specific issues at the team and role levels.
In Summary, the singular monthly rating for one department indicates medium-level change. But at what time of the month, for what role, for what team, and for what type of impact?
2) Using Project Milestone Roadmap to Sequence Impacts
Project milestone roadmaps are commonly used to sequence the impacts of change initiatives. However, this approach faces challenges in terms of the sufficiency of milestones and the difficulty of overlaying multiple capacity considerations.
Below is an example from Praxis Framework.
a. Milestones Are Not Sufficient vs Overall Aggregate Impact Levels:
While project milestones provide a structured timeline for change initiatives, they may not capture the full scope of the impact on the organization. Engaging key stakeholders is essential during this process, as milestones often focus on project-specific tasks and may overlook broader organizational changes that occur concurrently. For example, adoption may require months and is not a single point-in-time milestone per se.
To overcome this limitation, organizations should supplement milestone roadmaps with an overall aggregate impact assessment. This holistic view ensures that the sequence of milestones aligns with the broader organizational objectives and minimizes conflicts between concurrent initiatives.
b. Difficulty of Overlaying Multiple Capacity Considerations:
Managing multiple change initiatives requires a delicate balance of resources, and overlaying capacity considerations can be challenging due to the scope of the change. Project milestone roadmaps may not adequately address the interdependencies and additional resources needed due to the resource constraints that arise when multiple initiatives are in progress simultaneously.
To enhance capacity planning, organizations should invest in advanced project management tools that allow for the dynamic adjustment of timelines based on resource availability. This ensures a realistic and achievable sequencing of impacts, taking into account the organization’s overall capacity.
3) Relying Purely on Excel and PowerPoint to Manage Multiple Change Initiatives
While Excel and PowerPoint are ubiquitous tools in the business world, relying solely on them to manage multiple change initiatives presents challenges related to the agile nature of changes and the difficulty of having interactive data-based conversations. This is especially the case that most change initiatives are digital changes, and yet they are been managed using non-digital means? How can change practitioners ‘be the change’ when they are using dated ways of driving digital change?
a. Agile Nature of Changes Means Ongoing Updates Are Required:
Change initiatives are inherently dynamic, and their requirements can evolve rapidly, especially in response to market shifts. Excel and PowerPoint, while useful for static reporting, lack the real-time collaborative capabilities needed to accommodate the agile nature of changes while maintaining the status quo.
To address this challenge, organizations should consider adopting change management and collaboration tools that enable real-time updates and collaboration. Cloud-based platforms provide the flexibility to make ongoing adjustments, ensuring that stakeholders are always working with the latest information.
b. Difficulty of Having Interactive Data-Based Conversations and Federated Model of Change Data:
Excel and PowerPoint may struggle to facilitate interactive discussions around change data. As organizations increasingly operate in a federated model, with dispersed teams working on different aspects of change initiatives, a more collaborative and integrated approach is essential.
Implementing dedicated change management platforms that support interactive data-based discussions can enhance collaboration and provide a centralized repository for change-related information. This ensures that all stakeholders have access to the latest data, fostering a more transparent and collaborative change management process.
4) Preparing Business Operations Readiness for the Amount of Change
Preparing business operations for a significant amount of change requires a strategic approach that incorporates capacity and time considerations while maintaining granularity in data.
a. Using Business Operations Speak: Capacity, resources, time.
Business operations readiness is often discussed in terms of capacity and time. However, the challenge lies in translating these concepts into actionable plans. Capacity planning involves understanding the organization’s ability to absorb change without compromising existing operations, while time considerations are crucial for ensuring a smooth transition without disruptions.
Change practitioners need to distill the ‘ask of the business’ in business speak. Business stakeholders may not be interested in the various classifications of change or the varying degrees of cultural changes involved. What they are interested in is what you want from my team, how much time you need them to dedicate, and for what team members, so that they can plan accordingly.
b. Granularity of Data:
The granularity of data is essential for effective business operations readiness. Generic metrics may not capture the specific needs and challenges of individual departments or teams, leading to oversights that can impact the success of change initiatives.
Implementing a comprehensive data collection and analysis strategy that considers the unique requirements of each business unit ensures a more accurate understanding of operational readiness. This granularity allows organizations to tailor change management strategies to specific needs, enhancing the likelihood of successful implementation.
5) Getting Executive Engagement and Decision Making
Ensuring executive engagement and decision-making is critical for the success of change initiatives. However, achieving this engagement poses its own set of challenges.
To overcome this challenge, organizations should:
Establish Clear Governance and Engagement Channels:
Ensure that there is in place a clear governance bodies making decisions on the overall control of successful change initiatives across the organisation, focusing on the success of the change. A robust communication strategy ensures that communication channels between change management teams and executives are also well-defined and effective. Regular updates and transparent reporting on the progress and challenges of change initiatives build trust and encourage executive engagement.
Align Change Initiatives with Strategic Objectives:
Demonstrate the alignment of change initiatives with key performance indicators related to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. Executives are more likely to engage when they see how a particular change contributes to the overall success of the organization and its growth.
Provide Decision-Making Frameworks:
Equip executives with decision-making frameworks that guide them through the complexities of change initiatives. Clearly defined criteria for evaluating the success of a change, along with potential risks and mitigation strategies, empower executives to make informed decisions.
Highlight the Business Impact:
Clearly articulate the business impact of change initiatives. Executives are more likely to engage when they understand the tangible benefits and potential risks associated with a particular change. Use data and analytics to support the business case for change.
Offer Ongoing Support and Education:
Ensure that executives have the necessary support and training to navigate the complexities of change management at all levels of the organization. This includes providing relevant information, resources, and sufficient time to help them make informed decisions and actively participate in the change process, especially regarding new processes. Creating ‘bite-sized’ and summarised insights is key for executives.
Effectively managing multiple change initiatives is a complex task that requires a holistic and adaptive approach. By addressing the challenges of change management, including change management obstacles associated with classification, sequencing, tool reliance, business operations readiness, and executive engagement, organizations can enhance their change management strategies and increase the likelihood of successful outcomes, ultimately maintaining a competitive edge. Embracing innovative tools, fostering collaboration, and maintaining a strategic focus on organizational goals are key elements in overcoming these challenges and navigating the ever-evolving landscape of change.
In this article, we’ve stressed the importance of data. You may wonder about the amount of time and effort required to establish all the various points mentioned in the article and if this is even doable. Well, using Excel and other static non-digital ways of managing change data will mean a significant volume of work, and even then it may not provide a clear picture that gives you the various cuts of data required to drive meaningful conversations. Resort to automation provided by change management software such as The Change Compass to assist in data capture, data analysis, and dashboard generation.
Digitisation, competition and changing industry conditions have amongst other things brought on an accelerated change agenda for a lot of organisations. What were previously thought to be 1 to 5 year horizons of change suddenly became an immediate change. Not only is working from home a norm for a lot of organisations but the struggle for enterprises to survive and stay relevant in the new norm means more changes. The normal equilibrium for a lot of these organisations is one that consumes a smaller number of changes at any one time. Suddenly, with the increased number of changes this leads to change saturation.
In change management, think of change saturation as a cup that fills up. The size of the cup is the change capacity. With limited capacity, there is only so much volume that is inherent. As the amount of change or the pace of change increases and the cup overflows the changes don’t stick and simply fall by the waist side and may result in change fatigue. This is when the negative impact of changes can occur.
What impacts an organisation’s change capacity?
1.Change leadership
Leaders can have significant influence on the organisation. Also, change leadership is a significant part of how change is managed and delivered. Effective change leadership can build on the capability of teams to be more agile and capable of absorbing more changes. Effective change leadership can also help to maximise how optimal the change is socialised and implemented, and therefore how it lands.
2. Change capability
The organisation’s change capability is one of the most important factors in determining their change capacity. Think of agile startup organisations that are constantly pivoting, introducing new operating models, products and services. This is part of their cultural norm. Other organisations that maybe less agile can also develop some of these capabilities through experience and development.
3. Nature of change
Not all types of changes are the same. Typically, a lot of the changes driven by senior leaders are about improving the bottom line or top line, improving customer experience or improving efficiency. Some are more complex changes requiring significant change journeys. Others may even be inherently ‘negatively perceived’ such as organisational restructuring and layoffs. However, there are also changes that are inherently seen as benefiting the work of employees (such as process improvement leading to less red tape).
4. Number of changes
The number of changes also impact the change capacity. Obviously more changes mean more capacity consumed, within an extent.
5. Impact of each change
The impact level of each change is also critical. Some initiatives have significant impact that requires a long period of time to embed the changes, e.g. culture change and complex system and process changes. On the other hand, simple process changes may not require much capacity and simple communication is all that is needed.
6. Overall change landscape
The overall change landscape of the organisation also affects perception and therefore in some ways the capacity for change. If competitors within the industry are all undergoing significant transformations then it sets the tone for what’s to come. In the same way, if all our friends are used to virtual ways of working then we become more open to it.
What’s the benefits of measuring change saturation?
Measuring change saturation can be significantly beneficial for the organisation. Understanding the tipping point means that PMO and change teams can work to avoid this from a planning perspective. Finding out during or after the releases that there is too much change saturation is an expensive exercise that diminishes the planned initiative benefits. It also leads to loss of productivity and operational disruptions. Moreover, employees lose faith in the ability of the organisation to manage change.
With greater clarity of the change saturation points organisations can work to monitor, track and manage the risk of over saturation. Measures can then be put in place to ensure minimal business disruption and protection of initiative benefits. This should be a key focus for risk in change.
How to measure change saturation?
Firstly, there is not one change saturation point for the whole organisation. Each department or even team may have different change saturation points. This is because they have different leaders, different cultural norms and different change capabilities.
So how do we measure the change saturation at a department or division level? Look historically at how changes have been received, starting with the past few months.
1. Monitor operational indicators
Depending on what the department is in charge of, understanding the change saturation point means closely monitoring the operational indicators. During change saturation operational indicators are usually also negatively impacted, depending on the nature of the changes.
For a call centre this could be average handling time, customer satisfaction rate, absenteeism, etc. For a back office department it could be efficiency or effectiveness measures, case completion rate, case quality rating, etc. You don’t need to be the expert in all the various operational measures of each department as you can tap on the operations representatives of these departments.
2. Get feedback from leaders
Interview or conduct surveys with departmental leaders to understand their perception of how changes have been implemented and any potential disruptions on the business. Understand how their teams have experienced change. Ask them whether it has been challenging to balance operational needs with change-induced activities. For example, were there challenges in employees attending initiative training sessions, and completing their role delivery obligations?
3. Be aware of potential biases
Be careful of opinions and feedback from leaders and employees. There may be a tendency to over-state and complain that there is constantly too much change. This happens because some over-state the risk of change saturation hoping that this may lead to less change and therefore easier to manage the operations of a business. Take care to avoid this bias.
4. Identify points of change saturation
If the department has undergone periods with multiple change initiatives that has resulted in negative impact on operational indicators and leaders have also provided feedback of similar change disruptions then measure this level of change. Record this specifically.
This requires a portfolio-level view of all the changes that have occurred and the various impacts of each initiative. With this change portfolio measurement you are able to then identify this level as perhaps just exceeding the change saturation point for that department. With this identified you can then plot this change saturation line. You should also closely monitor this level and adjust as needed.
Using The Change Compass change impact can be expressed in terms of hours of impact per week. The change saturation line can the plotted against the change impact levels. From this, you’re able to easily visualise to what extent there could be risk in exceeding the change saturation line.
It is important to note that measuring change impacts and therefore change saturation should ideally be at a weekly level. Measuring change impact at a monthly level may not be sufficiently detailed enough since there could be changes in impact levels within each month. For example, for Finance the quarter-end consolidation cycle could start mid-month and therefore the change impact indication may show up as less than it actually should be simply because the data is rolled-up by month.
Deriving a monthly dashboard in which to inform not just the change volume, but types of changes, risks, and impacted areas will do wonders to provide clear visibility for the business to get ready for and to track changes.
Other disciplines such as HR, Marketing or Operations rely on data to make critical business decisions. The Change function and change leaders should also follow best practices. Being armed with the right change impact data means that you can help the business to precisely pin-point change saturation points. This can provide tremendous value to the business in terms of business, initiative and risk protection.
If you’re keen to chat more about how you are managing change saturation and to find out more about our solutions feel free to contact us here to organise a chat.
Change heatmaps are one of the most commonly used charts when making business decisions on whether there is too much change or not. Yes there are some advantages of using heatmap. However, there are also lots of strong reasons why you should not use change heatmaps, at least solely. Let’s examine some of these reasons and tear apart some of the strong risks of relying on heatmaps to make change planning decisions.
How do you create an effective change management heat map?
To create an effective change managementheat map, identify key areas of impact and categorize them based on urgency and importance, including various impact levels. Use a color-coding system to visually represent data, ensuring stakeholders can quickly assess risk levels. Regularly update the map to reflect changes and maintain alignment with organizational goals.
What are some of the common ways of using heatmaps? A lot of organisations use change heat maps to represent how much change there is impacting different parts of the business. There are various versions of this. However, the most common way to depict this is to provide leadership teams with a list of each project against different parts of the business and show the heat levels. This is the less popular format because each project has varying levels of heat and to aggregate the heat level into one singular cell is not a good representation of the stakeholder impact experience.
The more popular way is to plot out the heat levels of different business units across time, employing a gradient scale, with each cell showing heat levels. This is better able to depict how different business units will be experiencing different levels of change across time across the delivery of all projects. The below is one example of a heatmap.
What are some of the advantages of using change heatmaps?
Easy to understand
A lot of stakeholders like this format because it is easier to understand. The deeper the colour is the more ‘change heat level’ there is. Simple! Most stakeholders can intuitively interpret the data without needing explanation.
Visually appealing
People like looking at colourful charts and the heatmap is colourful. Let’s face it … no one likes looking at a series of boring, stale charts that are monotone in colour. Right?
Familiar
Most stakeholders are used to the traffic light view of change heatmaps. In most project settings, the red, amber, green indication of different heat levels are well understood to depict varying levels of high performance heat within a change setting.
However, there is a long list of strong reasons why you should not rely on change heatmaps … or at least not purely.
Why should we not use the change heatmap?
The traffic light method of depicting different volumes of change is misleading.
Firstly, having only 3 categories of different categories of change volume is not adequate within organisations that have lots of change. In practice, if we only use red, amber and green to depicts all varying levels of change then a lot of the time the colours will remain the same, even when there is significant varying levels. So, clearly the variation depicted within 3 colours is much too limiting.
The traffic light method of depicting change is subject to psychological bias
Yes stakeholders are familiar with interpreting traffic light indications. However, within the project context stakeholders interpret green as good, red as alert/bad, and amber as be careful or keep watching. This is absolutely not the right message when interpreting the heatmap.
Each colour should show purely the level of change impact, and not if the change is good or bad. Therefore, at The Change Compass we have stopped using the traffic light system of indicating change heatmap. Instead, we use different shade of the same colour so that the user purely focuses on the colour levels, and not additional psychological biases. Here is an example.
The heatmap is very categorical
Whether using 3 levels of 5 levels of colours is categorical by definition. We are categorising the varying levels of change into one of these categories. So, by definition the heatmap cannot be granular. It is only designed to provide a high level and broad-sweeping view of change volume. To get a more granular view other charts should be used instead that depict exact volume of the impact within a point in time. For example, a bar chart. Here is one example.
Some of the best reasons not to use heatmaps are due to significant risk
What are these risks?
Risk of personal judgment in deriving heatmaps
A common way to put together change heatmaps is to use ‘personal judgment’ to rate the change impact of projects across time and across business units. This is an easier and faster way to generate heatmaps. However, because the rating is highly subjective, you will easily get challenged by your stakeholders. It may be a rabbit-hole within a stakeholder meeting that you would not want to go down.
Comparing across business units
When stakeholders read a change heatmap the natural tendency is to compare the heat levels across different business units. Department A has more change than department B. It is human nature. However, what the heatmap does not communicate is the varying levels of perceived change saturation across different business units.
Change saturation is affected by varying factors such as leadership quality and change maturity. Therefore, different business units will have different levels of susceptibility for change saturation. The same change volume can be perceived as having exceeded saturation in one business unit. However, for another business unit the same change level can be easily handled and consumed.
So, comparing change volumes across business units needs to be done carefully with the premise that this cannot necessarily be an apple-to-apple comparison.
Isolating the hotspots
Most companies present heatmaps at business unit levels. However, this may not be sufficient because in some cases this may be too broad of a view. It could be that on the surface one business unit has the most volume of change. But maybe its not the whole business unit. It could be just one team that is going to shoulder the bulk of the change volume, versus the whole business unit. Therefore, the ability to drill down and examine which section and which layer of the organisation is most impacted is critical.
Drilling down to find out where the hostpots are is not just a factor of which part of the business unit. It could also be the stakeholder group or type of roles impacted. It could be that only the frontlines are impacted versus the whole business unit. Or that only team managers are impacted, and not so much the frontline teams.
The other factors to examine also include the location of the teams impacted. Are certain locations more impacted than others? Are certain project activities impacting employees more than others? For example, are most employees needing to take time away from their day jobs because of the amount of training required?
Different types of people impacts
Employee heatmaps are mostly what change practioners spend their time on producing. However, there could also be impacts on customers. A lot of organisations are very forth-coming to call out that ‘customer is their number one focus’. However, is there a clear picture of what are all the various customer impacts resulting from change initiatives? There could also be impacts on partners and suppliers that work with the organisation to produce the products and services. Their impacts could also be critical in managing and planning for change.
Does not take into account change velocity
Change heatmaps typically focus on volumes of change. However, this is not the only perspective that needs to be considered. What about the speed in which change is going to be implemented? Will the change feel fast or slow? Is there a lot of change to be implemented within a short period of time? Clearly, having a way to depict the velocity of change can also be a very insightful lense in addition to just the focus on volume.
Teams that may be less change mature could struggle with a fast pace of organizational change if they have not had the previous experience nor the change capability in place. Does the team have the capacity to undergo rapid and fast moving change? Do they have the operating rhythms in place to support this velocity? Having a view to the velocity of change may provide guidance in terms of what business readiness needs to be in place to prepare for change. The below is an example of measuring the comparative speed of change from The Change Compass.
So, in summary you can see that there is more to understanding and planning for change than to rely solely on the change heatmap. Change is multidimensional. Simply using one view to depict it may not be sufficient. The key is to use it to provide a broad high level understanding and then drill down into other change data to understand what the story is and what the risks are the organisation, and to adjust their change strategies accordingly.
Being clear with what the story-line is will help you to determine what data to present to your stakeholders. If you are purely focused on driving discussion on whether to delay the roll out of certain projects due to limited business capacity of a particular business unit, then a bar chart may be more useful. If you are wanting to portray the impacted volume of certain roles, then a line chart portraying the volume of change that these roles will be facing into over time is a better option.
If you are finding it too complicated or manual to derive various change data visualisation or charts, have a chat to us. Digital is the way to go for organisations that would like to become more digital. Businesses are putting their weight on digitising as many parts of the operation as possible, and data collection, including insights from focus groups, is crucial in this process. Change also needs to catch up and digitise itself. This does not mean being data-centric at the expense of the ‘softer side of change’. It means using data to be more impactful and have better conversations to portray what will happen to the organisation and being able to call out critical risks, with adequate confidence.
In today’s dynamic business environment, managing multiple changes simultaneously is the norm, not the exception. As change transformation experts/leaders, we’re expected to provide clarity, reduce disruption, and drive successful adoption—often across a crowded portfolio of initiatives. In this high-stakes context, it’s tempting to lean on familiar tools and assumptions to simplify complexity. However, some of the most common beliefs about managing multiple changes are not just outdated—they can actively undermine your efforts.
Here we explore seven widespread assumptions that can lead change leaders astray. By challenging these myths, you can adopt more nuanced, effective approaches that truly support your people and your business.
Assumption 1: A Heatmap or Data Table is a Single View of Change
Heatmaps and data tables have become go-to tools for visualising change across an organisation. At a glance, they promise to show us where the “hotspots” are—those areas experiencing the most change. But is this single view really giving us the full picture?
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Not All Change is Disruptive—Some is Positive A heatmap typically highlights areas with high volumes of change, but it doesn’t distinguish between positive and negative impacts. For example, a new digital tool might be seen as a “hotspot” simply because it affects many employees, but if it makes their jobs easier and boosts productivity, the overall experience could be positive. Conversely, a smaller change that disrupts workflows or adds complexity may have a much larger negative impact on a specific group, even if it doesn’t light up the heatmap. Depth of understanding beyond the heatmap is key.
2. The Data May Not Show the Real ‘Heat’ The accuracy of a heatmap depends entirely on the data feeding it. If your ratings are based on high-level, generic ‘traffic-light’ impact assessments, you may miss the nuances of how change is actually experienced by employees. For instance, a heatmap might show a “red zone” in one department based on the number of initiatives, but if those initiatives are well-aligned and support the team’s goals, the actual disruption could be minimal.
3. The Illusion of Completeness A single view of change suggests that you’ve captured every initiative—strategic, operational, and BAU (Business As Usual)—in one neat package. In reality, most organisations struggle to maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date inventory of all changes. BAU initiatives, in particular, often slip under the radar, even though their cumulative impact can be significant. This is not to say that one always needs to aim for 100%. However, labelling this as ‘single view of change’ would then be an exaggeration.
The Takeaway
Heatmaps and data tables are useful starting points, but they’re not the whole story. They provide a high-level snapshot, not a diagnostic tool. Heatmaps should also not be the only visual you use. There are countless other ways to present similar data. To truly understand the impact of multiple changes, you need to go deeper—gathering qualitative insights, focusing on employee experience, and recognising that not all “hotspots” are created equal. Ultimately the data should tell you ‘why’ and ‘how’ to fix it.
Assumption 2: A Change Manager’s H/M/L Rating Equals Business Impact
It’s common practice to summarise the impact of change initiatives using simple High/Medium/Low (H/M/L) ratings. These ratings are easy to communicate and look great in dashboards. But do they really reflect the business impact?
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Oversimplification Masks Nuance H/M/L ratings often blend a variety of factors: the effort required from business leads, subject matter experts (SMEs), sponsors, project teams, and change champions. These ratings may not be based solely—or even primarily—on employee or customer impact. For example, a “High” impact rating might reflect the complexity of project delivery rather than the degree of disruption felt by frontline staff.
2. Limited Decision-Making Value A single, combined rating has limited utility for decision-making. If you need to focus specifically on employee impacts, customer experience, or partner relationships, a broad H/M/L assessment won’t help you target your interventions. It becomes a blunt instrument, unable to guide nuanced action.
3. Lack of Granularity for Business Units For business units, three categories (High, Medium, Low) are often too broad to provide meaningful insights. Important differences between types of change, levels of disruption, and readiness for adoption can be lost, resulting in a lack of actionable information.
The Takeaway
Don’t rely solely on H/M/L ratings to understand business impact. Instead, tailor your assessments to the audience and the decision at hand. Use more granular, context-specific measures that reflect the true nature of the change and its impact on different stakeholder groups, where it makes sense.
Assumption 3: Number of Go-Lives Shows Us the Volume of Change
It’s easy to fall into the trap of using Go-Live dates as a proxy for change volume. After all, Go-Live is a clear, measurable milestone, and counting them up seems like a straightforward way to gauge how much change is happening. But this approach is fundamentally flawed.
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Not All Go-Lives Are Created Equal Some Go-Lives are highly technical, involving backend system upgrades or infrastructure changes that have little to no visible impact on most employees. Others, even if small in scope, might significantly alter how people work day-to-day. Simply tallying Go-Lives ignores the nature, scale, and felt impact of each change.
2. The Employee Experience Is Not Tied to Go-Live Timing The work required to prepare for and adopt a change often happens well before or after the official Go-Live date. In some projects, readiness activities—training, communications, process redesign—may occur months or even a year ahead of Go-Live. Conversely, true adoption and behaviour change may lag long after the system or process is live. Focusing solely on Go-Live dates misses these critical phases of the change journey.
3. Volume Does Not Equal Impact A month with multiple Go-Lives might be relatively easy for employees if the changes are minor or well-supported. In contrast, a single, complex Go-Live could create a massive disruption. The volume of Go-Lives is a poor indicator of the real workload and adaptation required from your people.
The Takeaway
Don’t equate the number of Go-Lives with the volume or impact of change. Instead, map the full journey of each initiative—readiness, Go-Live, and post-implementation adoption. Focus on the employee experience throughout the lifecycle, not just at the technical milestone.
Assumption 4: We Only Need to Track Strategic Projects
Strategic projects are naturally top of mind for senior leaders and transformation teams. They’re high-profile, resource-intensive, and often linked to key business objectives. But is tracking only these initiatives enough?
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Strategic Does Not Always Mean Disruptive While strategic projects are important, they don’t always have the biggest impact on employees’ day-to-day work. Sometimes, operational or BAU (Business As Usual) initiatives—such as process tweaks, compliance updates, or system enhancements—can create more disruption for specific teams.
2. Blind Spots in Change Impact Focusing exclusively on strategic projects creates blind spots. Employees may be grappling with a host of smaller, less visible changes that collectively have a significant impact on morale, productivity, and engagement. If these changes aren’t tracked, leaders may be caught off guard by resistance or fatigue.
3. Data Collection Bias Strategic projects are usually easier to track because they have formal governance, reporting structures, and visibility. BAU initiatives, on the other hand, are often managed locally and may not be captured in central change registers. Ignoring them can lead to an incomplete and misleading picture of overall change impact.
The Takeaway
To truly understand and manage the cumulative impact of change, track both strategic and BAU initiatives. This broader view helps you identify where support is needed most and prevents change overload in pockets of the organisation that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Assumption 5: We Can Just Use One Adoption Survey for All Initiatives
Surveys are a popular tool for measuring change adoption. The idea of using a single, standardised survey across all initiatives is appealing—it saves time, simplifies reporting, and allows for easy comparison. But this approach rarely delivers meaningful insights.
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Every Initiative Is Unique Each change initiative has its own objectives, adoption targets, and success metrics. A generic survey cannot capture the specific behaviours, attitudes, or outcomes that matter for each project. If you try to make one survey fit all, you end up with questions so broad that the data becomes meaningless and unhelpful.
2. Timing Matters The right moment to measure adoption varies by initiative. Some changes require immediate feedback post-Go-Live, while others need follow-up months later to assess true behavioural change. Relying on a single survey at a fixed time can miss critical insights about the adoption curve.
3. Depth and Relevance Are Lost A one-size-fits-all survey lacks the depth needed to diagnose issues, reinforce learning, or support targeted interventions. It may also fail to engage employees, who can quickly spot when questions are irrelevant to their experience.
The Takeaway
Customise your adoption measurement for each initiative. Tailor questions to the specific outcomes you want to achieve, and time your surveys to capture meaningful feedback. Consider multiple touchpoints to track adoption over time and reinforce desired behaviours.
Assumption 6: ‘Change Impost’ Understanding Helps the Business
The term “change impost” has crept into the vocabulary of many organisations, often used to describe the perceived burden that change initiatives place on the business. On the surface, it might seem helpful to quantify this “impost” so that leaders can manage or minimise it. However, this framing is fraught with problems.
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Negative Framing Fuels Resistance Describing change as an “impost” positions it as something external, unwelcome, and separate from “real” business work. This language reinforces the idea that change is a distraction or a burden, rather than a necessary part of growth and improvement. Stakeholders who hear change discussed in these terms may lead to the reinforcement of negativity towards change versus incorporating change as part of normal business work.
2. It Artificially Separates ‘Change’ from ‘Business’ In reality, change is not an add-on—it is intrinsic to business evolution. By treating change as something apart from normal operations, organisations create a false dichotomy that hinders integration and adoption. This separation can also lead to confusion about responsibilities and priorities, making it harder for teams to see the value in new ways of working.
3. There Are Better Alternatives Instead of “change impost,” consider using terms like “implementation activities,” “engagement activities,” or “business transformation efforts.” These phrases acknowledge the work involved in change but frame it positively, as part of the ongoing journey of business improvement.
The Takeaway
Language matters. Choose terminology that normalises change as part of everyday business, not as an external burden. This shift in mindset can help foster a culture where change is embraced, not endured.
Assumption 7: We Just Need to Avoid High Change Volumes to Manage Capacity
It’s a common belief that the best way to manage organisational capacity is to avoid periods of high change volume—flattening the curve, so to speak. While this sounds logical, the reality is more nuanced.
Why This Assumption is Wrong
1. Sometimes High Volume Is Strategic Depending on your organisation’s transformation goals, there may be times when a surge in change activity is necessary. For example, reaching a critical mass of changes within a short period can create momentum, signal a new direction, or help the organisation pivot quickly. In these cases, temporarily increasing the volume of change is not only acceptable—it’s desirable to reach significant momentum and outcomes.
2. Not All Change Is Equal The type of change matters as much as the quantity. Some changes are minor and easily absorbed, while others are complex and disruptive. Simply counting the number of initiatives or activities does not account for their true impact on capacity.
3. Planned Peaks and ‘Breathers’ Are Essential Rather than striving for a perfectly flat change curve, it’s often more effective to plan for peaks and valleys. After a period of intense change, deliberately building in “breathers” allows the organisation to recover, consolidate gains, and prepare for the next wave. This approach helps maintain organisational energy and reduces the risk of burnout.
The Takeaway
Managing capacity is about more than just avoiding high volumes of change. It requires a strategic approach to pacing, sequencing, and supporting people through both busy and quieter periods.
Practical Recommendations for Change Leaders
Having debunked these common assumptions, what should change management and transformation leaders do instead? Here are some actionable strategies:
1. Use Multiple Lenses to Assess Change
Combine quantitative tools (like heatmaps and data tables) with qualitative insights from employee feedback, focus groups, and direct observation.
Distinguish between positive and negative impacts, and tailor your analysis to specific stakeholder groups.
2. Get Granular with Impact Assessments
Move beyond generic H/M/L ratings. Develop more nuanced scales or categories that reflect the true nature and distribution of impacts.
Segment your analysis by business unit, role, or customer group to uncover hidden hotspots.
3. Map the Full Change Journey
Track readiness activities, Go-Live events, and post-implementation adoption separately.
Recognise that the most significant work—both for employees and leaders—often happens outside the Go-Live window.
4. Track All Relevant Initiatives
Include both strategic and BAU changes in your change portfolio.
Regularly update your inventory to reflect new, ongoing, and completed initiatives.
5. Customise Adoption Measurement
Design adoption surveys and feedback mechanisms for each initiative, aligned to its specific objectives and timing.
Use multiple touchpoints to monitor progress and reinforce desired behaviours.
6. Use Positive, Inclusive Business Language
Frame change as part of business evolution and operations, not an “impost.”
Encourage leaders and teams to see change work as integral to ongoing success.
7. Plan for Peaks and Recovery
Strategically sequence changes to align with business priorities and capacity.
Build in recovery periods after major waves of change to maintain energy and engagement.
Managing multiple changes in a complex organisation is never easy—but it’s made harder by clinging to outdated assumptions. By challenging these myths and adopting a more nuanced, evidence-based approach, change management and transformation leaders can better support their people, deliver real value, and drive sustainable success.
Remember: Effective change management is not about ticking boxes or flattening curves. It’s about understanding the lived experience of change, making informed decisions, and leading with empathy and clarity in a world that never stands still.
At The Change Compass, we’ve incorporated various best practices into our tool to capture change data across the organisation. Chat to us to find out more.
