Do We Really Need a View of Changes Across the Organisation?
As the pace of change accelerates, senior leaders are increasingly asking for a comprehensive view of changes happening across the organisation. However, not everyone sees the need for this. Some change practitioners focus solely on project-level implementation, while others concentrate on developing change capability or leadership. So, is a broad organisational view of change necessary? The short answer is yes—and here’s why.
Why is a View of Changes Important?
1. Understanding Change is Key to Improving It
Managing change effectively requires a clear understanding of what is changing. Without visibility into the scope and nature of changes, how can we improve them? Imagine if Finance attempted to manage an organisation’s finances without access to financial data. The same principle applies to change management—without insights into ongoing changes, making informed improvements to how change is managed becomes impossible or at least ineffective.
A holistic view also helps identify patterns and systemic issues that may not be visible when looking at changes in isolation. For example, if multiple teams are experiencing resistance to similar types of change, it may indicate an underlying cultural or structural issue rather than a problem with individual initiatives.
2. Avoiding a Myopic View
Many change practitioners operate at the project level, focusing on the change they are driving without visibility into other initiatives. This narrow focus can lead to conflicting priorities, resource constraints, and stakeholder fatigue. A fragmented approach often results in duplication of effort, where multiple teams work on similar initiatives without coordination, wasting time and resources.
A lack of visibility can also cause bottlenecks. For instance, two major transformation projects requiring input from the same group of employees may create undue pressure, leading to burnout and decreased productivity. With an organisational view, leaders can identify these risks in advance and implement measures to mitigate them, such as staggering implementation timelines or providing additional support.
3. Taking a Human-Centred Approach
A human-centred approach to change means viewing change from the perspective of impacted stakeholders rather than just from a project lens. Employees and customers experience multiple changes together, not in isolated silos. To design change experiences that work, we must understand the overall change landscape and how it affects people’s daily work and interactions.
Without a consolidated view, employees may feel overwhelmed by frequent, disconnected changes. This often leads to change fatigue, disengagement, and resistance. By considering how multiple changes intersect, organisations can design more coherent and supportive transition experiences for their people, improving adoption rates and overall satisfaction.
There are some who would rather not use the term ‘change fatigue’. Sure. Other labels may be used instead. However, not acknowledging its existence does not mean that it does not exists. We can choose to not label and not address the impacts of multiple changes. By doing this it will not magically go away. This is not going to help the business perform better and reach its targets.
4. Supporting Leadership in Managing Business Performance
Leaders are concerned about how changes impact business performance. Without a consolidated view of what is changing, how those changes interact, and their organisational impact, it is difficult to provide meaningful insights. A structured view of change enables leaders to make informed decisions, mitigate risks, and optimise the overall change portfolio to support business objectives.
For example, if an organisation is rolling out a new customer relationship management (CRM) system while simultaneously restructuring its sales teams, leaders need to assess whether these initiatives will complement or hinder each other. Without this awareness, they may inadvertently introduce inefficiencies, such as duplicate training efforts or conflicting performance expectations.
5. Enhancing Organisational Readiness for Change
A key benefit of having a comprehensive view of change is improving organisational readiness. Readiness is not just about preparing individuals for a specific change but ensuring the organisation as a whole is capable of absorbing and adapting to continuous transformation.
An organisation that understands its change landscape can proactively assess its capacity for change at any given time. If several major initiatives are running concurrently, leaders can evaluate whether the organisation has the resources, cultural maturity, and leadership alignment to support them. Without this visibility, companies risk overloading employees and creating resistance due to excessive, poorly timed changes.
Furthermore, readiness assessments can identify gaps in capability, such as the need for additional training, clearer communication, or adjustments in leadership support. When organisations have a clear view of upcoming changes, they can put proactive measures in place, such as phased rollouts, targeted engagement efforts, or reinforcement mechanisms, to ensure smoother transitions and greater adoption success.
6. How an Integrated View of Change Supports Business Readiness
An integrated view of change enables organisations to move beyond reactive change management and embrace proactive change readiness. By mapping all significant transformations across the business, leaders can anticipate challenges, synchronise efforts, and prepare employees more effectively.
For example, if a company is implementing a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system while also shifting to a hybrid work model, an integrated change view allows decision-makers to assess whether these changes will create conflicting demands on employees. Instead of overwhelming teams with simultaneous process and technology shifts, adjustments can be made to stagger rollouts, align training programs, and provide tailored support.
Additionally, when businesses have a comprehensive perspective on change, they can implement readiness initiatives such as leadership coaching, employee engagement strategies, and resilience-building programs well in advance. This ensures that by the time changes take effect, the organisation is not just aware of them but fully prepared to embrace and sustain them. An integrated approach fosters a culture of adaptability, making the business more resilient in the face of continuous transformation.
Addressing Common Concerns: “It’s Too Complicated”
A frequent argument against establishing an organisation-wide change view is that it is too complex and resource-intensive. However, this does not need to be the case.
1. Start Small and Scale Gradually
Instead of attempting a whole-organisation approach from the outset, begin with a stakeholder lens. Understand how changes impact specific stakeholder groups, then expand to teams, departments, and eventually the entire organisation. This phased approach ensures manageable progress without overwhelming stakeholders.
One way to do this is by focusing on a single high-impact function, such as IT or HR, and mapping their change landscape before expanding outward. By demonstrating value in a contained environment, it becomes easier to gain buy-in for broader adoption.
2. Begin with Basic Data
There is no need to start with an elaborate data set. A simple list of initiatives is enough to begin forming a picture. Over time, additional data points—such as timelines, affected stakeholders, and interdependencies—can be added to enhance visibility and analysis.
Many organisations already have elements of this data scattered across different departments. Consolidating this information in a central repository can be a quick win that provides immediate value without requiring extensive new processes.
3. Take an Agile, Iterative Approach
Building a change view incrementally allows for continuous refinement and adaptation. By adopting an agile mindset, practitioners can deliver immediate value while progressively enhancing the data set. This approach ensures that the effort remains practical and sustainable while demonstrating benefits to stakeholders at each stage.
Using lightweight collaboration tools, such as shared spreadsheets or simple dashboard software, can help kickstart the process without significant investment in complex change management platforms.
Once you progress to a more sophisticated level where you need AI support and advanced dashboarding, check out Change Compass.
The Benefits of an Organisational View of Change
1. Improved Stakeholder Experience
By understanding the cumulative impact of multiple changes, organisations can better manage stakeholder experiences. Employees are often subject to change saturation when faced with numerous uncoordinated initiatives. A holistic view enables better sequencing and pacing of change to ensure smoother transitions.
2. Enhanced Risk Management
Without an overarching view, risks associated with overlapping initiatives may go unnoticed until issues arise. Identifying potential bottlenecks and conflicts early helps in designing mitigating strategies before problems escalate. Risks may include program delivery risk, operational risk, benefit realisation risk and various people risks.
3. Better Resource Allocation
Organisations often face resource constraints, whether in terms of budget, personnel, or time. A consolidated view helps leaders prioritise initiatives effectively, ensuring that resources are allocated to high-impact changes while minimising inefficiencies.
4. Strengthened Leadership Decision-Making
Leaders require data-driven insights to make informed strategic decisions. A comprehensive change landscape provides clarity on what is happening across the organisation, empowering leaders to align transformation efforts with business objectives.
Practical Steps to Establish an Organisation-Wide Change View
Step 1: Identify Key Stakeholders
Begin by engaging stakeholders across the organisation to understand their concerns and expectations. These may include senior executives, department heads, project managers, and frontline employees.
Step 2: Map Current and Upcoming Changes
Compile a list of all ongoing and planned initiatives. Categorise them by business function, timeline, impacted teams, and strategic priority. This will create an initial snapshot of the change landscape.
Step 3: Identify Interdependencies
Assess how different initiatives interact with each other. Are there overlapping resource requirements? Do changes in one area impact another? Recognising these dependencies enables better coordination and minimises disruption.
Step 4: Develop a Change Portfolio View
Use visualisation tools to represent the collected data in a meaningful way. Heatmaps, Gantt charts, and stakeholder impact matrices can help illustrate the overall change picture.
Step 5: Implement Governance Structures
Establish governance mechanisms to continuously update and refine the change portfolio. This may involve periodic reviews, a centralised change coordination team, or designated change champions within each department.
Step 6: Communicate Insights Effectively
Share findings with stakeholders in a digestible format. Providing clarity on how changes align with organisational priorities fosters engagement and encourages proactive collaboration.
Future Trends in Organisational Change Visibility
1. Increased Use of Digital Tools
Advanced analytics, AI-driven insights, and dashboard visualisation tools are making it easier to track and analyse change across an organisation in real-time.
2. Integration with Business Strategy
Change management is increasingly being embedded within broader business strategy execution and performance metrics tracking, ensuring alignment with long-term goals.
3. Greater Focus on Employee Experience
Organisations are recognising the importance of measuring change from an employee perspective. This includes sentiment analysis, real-time feedback loops, and adaptive communication strategies.
A comprehensive view of change across an organisation is not just a ‘nice-to-have’—it is essential for effective change management. It enables better decision-making, reduces unintended consequences, and enhances the overall employee experience. While establishing such a view may seem complex, taking a pragmatic, step-by-step approach makes it achievable and valuable.
For experienced change and transformation professionals, this shift in perspective is not just about managing change—it’s about leading it effectively in an increasingly dynamic world.
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.
In this article, we will explore the top five challenges associated with the current approaches to managing multiple change initiatives. We explore these common approaches and critique key challenges, along with alternatives.
1) Using Change Heatmap to Classify Departments Impacted
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. 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. Project milestone roadmaps may not adequately address the interdependencies and 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. Excel and PowerPoint, while useful for static reporting, lack the real-time collaborative capabilities needed to accommodate the agile nature of changes.
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 clear governance bodies making decisions on the overall control of initiatives across the organisation. Communication channels between change management teams and executives should also be 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 the organization’s strategic objectives. Executives are more likely to engage when they see how a particular change contributes to the overall success and growth of the company.
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. This includes providing relevant information, resources, and expertise to help them make informed decisions and actively participate in the change process. 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 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. 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.
Change saturation is one of the popular search items when it comes to measuring change management. How do we effectively measure change saturation without resorting to personal opinions? And how might we formulate effective recommendations that are logical and that stakeholders can action immediately?
Use this recipe to measure change saturation using The Change Compass.
Digitisation, Covid, 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.
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. When the cup overflows the changes don’t stick and simply fall by the waist side.
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 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 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.
Sample from The Change Compass (Red line is change saturation)
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.
Example of reporting from Change Automator
Other disciplines such as HR, Marketing or Operations rely on data to make critical business decisions. The Change function should also follow suit. 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.
What are some of the common ways of using heatmaps? A lot of organisations use change heatmaps to represent how much change there is impacting different parts of the business. There are various versions of this. However, the most common way to depict this is either to list each project against different parts of the business and show the heat levels. This is the less popular format because each project has varying levels of heat and to aggregate the heat level into one singular cell is not a good representation of the stakeholder impact experience.
The more popular way is to plot out the heat levels of different business units across time, with each cell showing heat levels. This is better able to depict how different business units will be experiencing different levels of change across time across the delivery of all projects. The below is one example of a heatmap.
What are some of the advantages of using change heatmaps?
Easy to understand
A lot of stakeholders like this format because it is easier to understand. The deeper the colour is the more ‘change heat level’ there is. Simple! Most stakeholders can intuitively interpret the data without needing explanation.
Visually appealing
People like looking at colourful charts and the heatmap is colourful. Let’s face it … no one likes looking at a series of boring, stale charts that are monotone in colour. Right?
Familiar
Most stakeholders are used to the traffic light view of change heatmaps. In most project setting, the red, amber, green indication of different heat levels are well understood to depict varying levels of heat within a change setting.
However, there is a long list of strong reasons why you should not rely on change heatmaps … or at least not purely.
Why should we not use the change heatmap?
The traffic light method of depicting different volumes of change is misleading.
Firstly, having only 3 categories of different categories of change volume is not adequate within organisations that have lots of change. In practice, if we only use red, amber and green to depicts all varying levels of change then a lot of the time the colours will remain the same, even when there is significant varying levels. So, clearly the variation depicted within 3 colours is much too limiting.
The traffic light method of depicting change is subject to psychological bias
Yes stakeholders are familiar with interpreting traffic light indications. However, within the project context stakeholders interpret green as good, red as alert/bad, and amber as be careful or keep watching. This is absolutely not the right message when interpreting the heatmap.
Each colour should show purely the level of change impact, and not if the change is good or bad. Therefore, at The Change Compass we have stopped using the traffic light system of indicating change heatmap. Instead, we use different shade of the same colour so that the user purely focuses on the colour levels, and not additional psychological biases. Here is an example.
The heatmap is very categorical
Whether using 3 levels of 5 levels of colours is categorical by definition. We are categorising the varying levels of change into one of these categories. So, by definition the heatmap cannot be granular. It is only designed to provide a high level and broad-sweeping view of change volume. To get a more granular view other charts should be used instead that depict exact volume of the impact within a point in time. For example, a bar chart. Here is one example.
Some of the best reasons not to use heatmaps are due to significant risk
What are these risks?
Risk of personal judgment in deriving heatmaps
A common way to put together change heatmaps is to use ‘personal judgment’ to rate the change impact of projects across time and across business units. This is an easier and faster way to generate heatmaps. However, because the rating is highly subjective, you will easily get challenged by your stakeholders. It may be a rabbit-hole within a stakeholder meeting that you would not want to go down.
Comparing across business units
When stakeholders read a change heatmap the natural tendency is to compare the heat levels across different business units. Department A has more change than department B. It is human nature. However, what the heatmap does not communicate is the varying levels of perceived change saturation across different business units.
Change saturation is affected by varying factors such as leadership quality and change maturity. Therefore, different business units will have different levels of susceptibility for change saturation. The same change volume can be perceived as having exceeded saturation in one business unit. However, for another business unit the same change level can be easily handled and consumed.
So, comparing change volumes across business units needs to be done carefully with the premise that this cannot necessarily be an apple-to-apple comparison.
Isolating the hotspots
Most companies present heatmaps at business unit levels. However, this may not be sufficient because in some cases this may be too broad of a view. It could be that on the surface one business unit has the most volume of change. But maybe its not the whole business unit. It could be just one team that is going to shoulder the bulk of the change volume, versus the whole business unit. Therefore, the ability to drill down and examine which section and which layer of the organisation is most impacted is critical.
Drilling down to find out where the hostpots are is not just a factor of which part of the business unit. It could also be the stakeholder group or type of roles impacted. It could be that only the frontlines are impacted versus the whole business unit. Or that only team managers are impacted, and not so much the frontline teams.
The other factors to examine also include the location of the teams impacted. Are certain locations more impacted than others? Are certain project activities impacting employees more than others? For example, are most employees needing to take time away from their day jobs because of the amount of training required?
Different types of people impacts
Employee heatmaps are mostly what change practioners spend their time on producing. However, there could also be impacts on customers. A lot of organisations are very forth-coming to call out that ‘customer is their number one focus’. However, is there a clear picture of what are all the various customer impacts resulting from change initiatives? There could also be impacts on partners and suppliers that work with the organisation to produce the products and services. Their impacts could also be critical in managing and planning for change.
Does not take into account change velocity
Change heatmaps typically focus on volumes of change. However, this is not the only perspective that needs to be considered. What about the speed in which change is going to be implemented? Will the change feel fast or slow? Is there a lot of change to be implemented within a short period of time? Clearly, having a way to depict the velocity of change can also be a very insightful lense in addition to just the focus on volume.
Teams that may be less change mature could struggle with a fast pace of change if they have not had the previous experience nor the change capability in place. Does the team have the capacity to undergo rapid and fast moving change? Do they have the operating rhythms in place to support this velocity? Having a view to the velocity of change may provide guidance in terms of what business readiness needs to be in place to prepare for change. The below is an example of measuring the comparative speed of change from The Change Compass.
So, in summary you can see that there is more to understanding and planning for change than to rely solely on the change heatmap. Change is multidimensional. Simply using one view to depict it may not be sufficient. The key is to use it to provide a broad high level understanding and then drill down into other change data to understand what the story is and what the risks are the organisation.
Being clear with what the story-line is will help you to determine what data to present to your stakeholders. If you are purely focused on driving discussion on whether to delay the roll out of certain projects due to limited business capacity of a particular business unit, then a bar chart may be more useful. If you are wanting to portray the impacted volume of certain roles, then a line chart portraying the volume of change that these roles will be facing into over time is a better option.
If you are finding it too complicated or manual to derive various change data visualisation or charts have a chat to us. Digital is the way to go for organisations that would like to become more digital. Business are putting their weight on digising as many parts of the operation as possible. Change also needs to catch up and digitise itself. This does not mean being data-centric at the expense of the ‘softer side of change’. It means using data to be more impactful and have better conversations to portray what will happen to the organisation and being able to call out critical risks, with adequate confidence.
