Disruptions are all around us. First, the various disruptions with Covid on all aspects of people’s lives around the globe. Now we have the riots across the US as well as other countries about racial inequality. With these, we have the backdrop of constant significant changes and changes in new technologies that constantly challenge how we run our lives. What next you may ask?
Disruptions to how change management initiatives are managed seem to never cease. You think you’ve been through the worst with Covid impacting the budget expenditure on projects and the implementation timeline thrown up in the air due to lack of business capacity. The racial riots are disrupting normal business operations and it is back to business continuity plans for some organizations. How might we continue to manage our various change initiatives amongst these constant disruptions?
Strategic approaches
In being able to effectively respond to constant business disruptions on initiatives, a set of routines and business processes need to take place prior to the individual disruptions. Developing a strategic plan is essential to achieve the desired results and navigate these challenges.
Use the three horizons of growth as a framework to focus efforts on initiatives
McKinsey’s three horizons of growth describe 3 horizons of which initiatives should be clustered. Each horizon forms a critical set of initiatives from which the organisation may continue to develop and grow. If all focus was placed on horizon 1 that are focused on the here and now shorter-term initiatives, then the organisation is not placed to deal with emerging challenges addressed under horizons 2 and 3. Vice versa if all the effort is placed on horizon 3 and not 1.
With business disruptions, the effort and expenditure placed on initiatives can be evaluated in light of which horizon they are in. For example, if the Covid disruption is so significant on the business that it’s a matter of survival, then all efforts should focus on horizon 1 initiatives that contribute to organisational survival in terms of revenue and cost management. If the disruption is significant but not debilitating then it may be wise to spend half of the effort on horizon 1 with the rest on horizons 2 and 3.
Adopt a portfolio approach to manage changes
When initiatives are treated in isolation it is very difficult to flex and adjust to changes compared to a portfolio approach to manage change initiatives. Individual initiatives have limited resource capacity and project activities will have limited impact compared to multiple initiatives.
Having a portfolio approach to manage changes means having established the following:
Data-based approach to manage change impacts with a view of change impacts across initiatives for business leaders.
Ability to visualize and plan the change impacts from a business-unit-centric and stakeholder group centric perspective
Ability to manage resourcing across initiatives so that as required resources may be flexed up or down across the overall portfolio based on prioritisation
Ability to guide and prepare each business for multiple changes across initiatives
Key stakeholder messages may be synchronised and packaged across initiatives versus an initiative by initiative approach
Improved ability to map out clearly the various skills and capabilities being implemented across initiatives to avoid duplication and improve synergies
What can change practitioners contribute in planning for disruptions?
Derive different change scenarios
Scenario planning as a technique is rarely used in a project planning context. However, it is especially critical and relevant within an agile environment. Agile project practices mean that changes keep iterating and therefore it may be hard to anticipate what the end solution or incremental change will look like. It may also be hard to anticipate how the business models and business will respond to the changes being proposed if we don’t know what the changes will look like.
To allow adequate time to plan for changes it is very helpful to derive at least 2 scenarios. In an agile environment, change practitioners need to adopt a hypothesis-based approach to deriving change approaches. Let’s take an example of a standard system implementation project. In rolling out a new system these could be 2 likely scenarios based on the hypothesis being posed.
Hypothesis: The system being implemented is easy and intuitive for users and therefore the change approach will be sufficient with awareness raising and a 1 hour training session
Scenario 1: The hypothesis is true and all users have found it easy and intuitive to use and therefore the change approach proposed is sufficient to prepare the users for this change.
Scenario 2: The hypothesis is only partially true and there are some user groups who struggled to understand all features of the system and need additional help and guidance. Additional training sessions with coaches are proposed
A different way of contrasting different scenarios will be to derive different project expenditures and funding requirements and resulting change delivery work. For example, under the system implementation project, a ‘Toyota’ approach of delivery could involve minimum training and stakeholder awareness generation. For a ‘Rolls Royce’ approach of delivery which will cost significantly more could include tailored coaching sessions for each stakeholder group, 1:1 coaching for senior leaders, a long awareness campaign, and an extensive measurement system. This helps stakeholders understand the cost of delivery and will help them to select an appropriate delivery model.
The usefulness of planning ahead to anticipate for different scenarios mean that steps may be taken to be ready for either of the scenarios and so the project team will not be caught off guard in case the hypothesis proposed is proved false.
To be able to visualize different scenarios it is important to show the different impacts of the scenarios. This includes the impact of time, sequencing, and impact levels on stakeholder groups. With a different rollout approach will stakeholder groups have better bandwidth and ability to adopt the change or will the bandwidth be more limited?
Here is an example of a scenario planning visual where the user can simply drag the impact bars to different times and be able to save this as a scenario. After saving the scenario the next activity will be to analyse the scenario to make sense of the potential impacts of this scenario on the business and impacted stakeholders. Are there project dependencies that need to be taken into consideration? What is the overall change impact across initiatives as a result of the changes in this scenario? How does this impact the customer versus internal stakeholder groups?
For scenarios to be used in a practical way it is important to be able to list any ‘proof points’ that outline how we can tell that the scenario is becoming true or not. These proof points can include anything ranging from stakeholder reactions, the timing of the implementation, the complexity of the features or solution, cost, and other tangible measurements such as system response time, time taken to perform the process, etc.
Agree on decision making principle with stakeholder
Prior to any disruptions, it is important to agree with stakeholders key decision-making principles. Having clear, agreed decision-making principles means that key decisions can be made without subjecting to personal opinions or preferences. During any times of disruption Decision-making principles can be organised as ‘trade-off’ principles with a prioritised order of importance. Below are some examples:
Cost
Time
People resource bandwidth
Benefit realisation
Stakeholder readiness and acceptance
External media implications
Factor in critical path in project planning
The critical path method is a way in which a project’s key interdependencies are linked and mapped out in a linear way so as to understand the key logical points along the project. From this any potential disruptions, slippages or delays in project deliverables and how they impact the remaining deliverables can be clearly understood and planned for.
A clear understanding of the critical path within a project means that with any disruptions to activities the impacts of this on the rest of the deliverables can easily be articulated. To deal with the disruptions to the project a longer implementation may need to be negotiated with the impacted businesses, or depending on the nature of the disruption, a different project approach with different deliverables may need to be derived.
Here we discussed multiple ways in which the change practitioner can help the organisation get ready for various disruptions to change initiatives. During periods of disruptive change, it is even more critical for change practitioners to demonstrate their value to lead and maneuver around and plan for uncertainty. Agile organisations are well placed to deal with disruptions, however, an effective set of routines, practices, preparations, and capabilities are all critical to building overall organisational readiness.
Rethinking Change Champions Beyond the Project Lens
For decades, the change champion has been a familiar figure in large-scale transformation projects – the trusted liaison between the change team and the business, responsible for rallying colleagues, answering questions, and providing on-the-ground feedback.
But in most organisations, they are treated as short-term, disposable resources: assembled for a single initiative, tasked with helping during deployment, and then disbanded as soon as the project reaches steady state.
This project-by-project approach misses a critical opportunity.
Increasingly, forward-thinking organisations are moving towards an enterprise change champion model and treating these roles not as temporary assignments, but as a strategic, cross-project capability that sits at the heart of building a more change-resilient workforce.
Why the Traditional Change Champion Model Falls Short
The conventional change champion construct has obvious strengths:
Champions are close to the ground, embedded in business units, and understand local challenges.
They can translate change plans into the everyday realities of their teams.
They give the project team early warning signs about resistance or readiness issues.
However, the limitations are equally apparent:
Short-Term Focus – Once a deployment is complete, project change champions are often released without retaining the capability they’ve built.
Loss of Internal Expertise – Any lessons learned, trust built, and skills acquired fade quickly when champions return to their ‘day jobs’ without a broader mandate.
Fragmentation – Each project recruits, trains, and manages its own champions independently, leading to inconsistent standards and duplicated engagement with the same stakeholders.
Missed Development Opportunities – Some of the most promising leaders remain untapped between projects.
When organisations experience continuous transformation with multiple overlapping initiatives, with varying scopes and impacts, this ad-hoc model leads to change fatigue and diluted influence.
A Step Change: The Enterprise-Wide Change Champion Network
What It Is
Instead of recruiting champions per project, the enterprise model creates a standing network of empowered, skilled employees and first-line managers who are trained, nurtured, and deployed to support any change in any part of the organisation.
They operate at two primary levels:
Employee-level champions – embedded in day-to-day operations, they bring peer credibility and act as the first touchpoint for change comms and readiness checks.
First-line manager champions – supervisory-level influencers who bridge the gap between leadership and frontline teams, actively managing the people side of change.
In addition, division-level representatives coordinate champion activity across their area and connect with the enterprise portfolio of changes. Some may sit in operational planning, HR, or directly in an enterprise change team, depending on organisational structure.
The Case for a Longer Term Champion Network
Change execution is not just about effective rollout – it’s about repeatable, scalable ability to change. The enterprise champion model delivers three key benefits that move the needle:
Sustainable Capability – Skills in influencing without authority, creative engagement, and grassroots communication are retained in the organisation.
Faster Time-to-Adoption – Champions already know the frameworks, templates, and rhythms of engagement, so each new change ramps up quickly.
Talent Pipeline – Champions gain visibility, influencing opportunities, and leadership exposure, making them prime candidates for promotion into leadership, project, or change roles. Many organisations using this model have inadvertently built a ‘leadership incubator’ in the process.
Selecting the Right Champions: Intake Principles
Not every employee is suited to being a champion. The selection criteria are critical to ensuring the network is both high-performing and credible:
Motivation – Champions must see value in playing the role, both intrinsically (desire to help the organisation evolve) and extrinsically (career growth, recognition).
Communication Skills – Ability to translate technical or abstract change messages into plain language for peers.
Coordination and Influence – Capable of corralling colleagues, keeping engagement high, and working across both formal reporting lines and informal networks.
The intake process should feel purposeful. This is not “volunteering” in the casual sense – it’s joining a professional network with enterprise significance.
Beyond Cheerleading: Shaping Change from the Ground Up
Traditional change champions too often become just “posters and cupcakes” – the enthusiastic promoters of a change, but with little voice in how it is planned or measured.
In the enterprise model, champions:
Raise Awareness – in ways that are relevant to their teams and culture, rather than relying on corporate one-size-fits-all messaging.
Sense-Check Readiness – gathering feedback and sentiment before key milestones, providing accurate insight back to project and leadership teams.
Design Local Engagement – creating tailored activities that make the change tangible and exciting.
Co-Own Measurement – participating in tracking adoption and readiness, and linking these to operational performance where relevant.
This measurement element is powerful. If champions see what is changing, when, and how much across the enterprise, they can better pace local adoption and avoid overwhelming their teams.
Now we turn to the how: the design, governance, and development practices that make an enterprise-wide change champion network a strategic business capability — trusted by leaders, respected by peers, and seen as a genuine driver of change adoption and organisational learning.
1. Designing the Enterprise Change Champion Model
A well-performing network of champions doesn’t rely on goodwill alone. It’s a deliberate, resourced capability with defined structure, integration points, and a clear operating rhythm.
a. Network Tiers
The most effective enterprise models feature three interconnected levels:
Local Champions (Employee Level)
Embedded within everyday operations.
Directly influence peers through trust and credibility.
Ensure changes are contextualised for their specific work environment.
First-Line Manager Champions
Serve as change role models for their teams.
Help translate strategic initiatives into operational priorities.
Manage workload balance between BAU and transformation demands.
Divisional / Functional Representatives
Coordinate local champions within their function or geography.
Interface with enterprise-level change, HR, or operational planning teams.
Escalate systemic adoption risks or barriers.
b. Integration with the Enterprise Operating Rhythm
Champions must be integrated into core business cycles, not treated as an “extra thing they do in their spare time”:
Quarterly Business Reviews – Include updates on change readiness and adoption.
Operational Meetings – Reserve time for upcoming change briefings.
Annual Planning – Involve champions in pipeline awareness so they can pace change delivery for their teams.
This ensures the network’s role is embedded, not bolted on.
2. Governance: Balancing Structure with Flexibility
A champion network requires governance to maintain credibility, but too much rigidity can limit creativity and ownership. Senior practitioners should consider:
a. Clear Mandate
Document the network’s remit:
To build and sustain readiness for change across the enterprise.
To surface ground-level issues early.
To contribute to measuring change adoption.
This clarity prevents champions from being used as “free event organisers” rather than strategic enablers.
b. Sponsorship
High-performing networks have active executive sponsorship, ideally within the executive team, ensuring:
Visibility at the top table.
Authority to escalate blockers.
Access to resources.
c. Role Tenure and Rotation
Typical tenure: 18–30 months, with renewal based on performance and availability.
Regular rotation broadens exposure for more employees, refreshes energy in the network, and reduces burnout from continuous change advocacy.
An enterprise network will only be as strong as its learning and development program. Champions need more than “change updates” – they need targeted skill-building.
a. Core Skills Curriculum
Influencing Without Authority – Building informal power and trust networks.
Change Fundamentals – Understanding models, frameworks, and adoption levers.
Storytelling for Change – Shaping narratives that inspire action.
Sentiment Analysis – Gathering and interpreting feedback on readiness and concerns.
Metrics Literacy – Understanding change dashboards and linking people data with performance outcomes.
b. Experiential Development
Shadowing Project Teams – To understand the “engine room” of change delivery.
Rotations Across Divisions – Cross-pollination of experience and approaches.
Facilitating Workshops – Hands-on leadership of engagement activities.
c. Recognition and Career Pathways
If you want the best people to step forward as champions, you need to position it as a career accelerator:
Formal credits in performance reviews.
Priority consideration for emerging leadership or project roles.
Public recognition in forums or internal comms.
4. Linking Champions to Change Metrics: Data as an Engagement Tool
One of the most powerful enablers of an enterprise champion network is visibility of change data– not just for executives, but for the champions themselves.
When champions can see:
The enterprise change portfolio – what’s coming, when, and where.
Impact heatmaps – the degree of change affecting each function.
Adoption trends – progress metrics by region, team, or process.
…they can better inform their local teams, manage change saturation, and proactively address pockets of resistance.
Champion-Led Reporting Loops
Champions provide local sentiment and engagement data back to the change and leadership teams.
This creates two-way measurement, balancing top-down project metrics with authentic ground-level insight.
5. Sustaining Momentum Over Time
Even the most enthusiastic champion cohorts can lose energy without deliberate momentum-building mechanisms. Senior leaders can embed sustainability by:
Regular Cohort Events – Quarterly summits to refresh skills, share success stories, and align on upcoming priorities.
Recognition Rituals – Spotlighting champions who have made significant local impact.
Knowledge Hubs – Digital platforms to share templates, tools, and peer insights.
Graduation Paths – Allowing champions to “graduate” to advanced roles (e.g., mentoring new champions or stepping into change leadership roles).
Proving Impact, Embedding Talent Pipelines, and Cultivating a Change-Agile Culture
Previously we explored the rationale for shifting to an enterprise-wide change champion model and how to design, govern, and develop a high-performing network. Now we close the loop by focusing on how to demonstrate return on investment (ROI), embed the champion network into talent and leadership pipelines, and drive a culture where agility and change readiness are organisational norms.
1. Demonstrating the Strategic Impact and ROI of the Champion Network
Transformation leaders need to show tangible value to maintain investment in the champion model. This requires defining and tracking the right measures across multiple dimensions:
a. Change Adoption Metrics
Speed to Adoption: Time taken for teams to reach defined levels of new process or tool usage.
Adoption Volume: Percentage of the workforce actively using or complying with the change.
Resistance Incidence: Frequency and severity of resistance signals identified via champions.
b. Employee Engagement and Sentiment
Regular pulse surveys co-designed with champions to gauge readiness, concerns, and morale.
Qualitative feedback from champions about barriers and enablers on the ground.
c. Talent Development Outcomes
Promotion and role progression rates of change champions.
Retention of champions compared to peer groups.
Champion participation rates in subsequent change initiatives.
d. Business Performance Linkage
Where possible, correlate change adoption rates with key performance indicators affected by the transformation (e.g., productivity improvement, customer satisfaction, error reduction).
The narrative around these metrics should highlight how the champion network reduces risk, accelerates change, and strengthens leadership pipelines—making it easier to secure ongoing support and resources.
2. Embedding the Champion Network into Talent and Leadership Pipelines
One of the most powerful aspects of an enterprise change champion model is its ability to develop future leaders through hands-on, cross-functional change experience:
a. Career Pathway Integration
Define clear career pathways linking champion roles to leadership, project management, and change leadership positions.
Include champion experience as a valued skill in performance appraisals and promotion criteria.
b. Succession and Rotation Planning
Rotate champions through different business units and change projects to broaden their exposure.
Use the network as a talent pipeline, actively identifying high-potential employees for targeted development.
c. Leadership Sponsorship and Mentorship
Engage senior leaders as sponsors for champions, providing mentorship and visibility on strategic initiatives.
Create mentorship programs pairing seasoned change professionals with champions to accelerate learning.
When treated seriously as a talent development program, the champion network becomes a leadership incubator that benefits the organisation far beyond the immediate change portfolio.
3. Cultivating a Change-Agile Culture through the Champion Model
Beyond skills and metrics, the enterprise champion model shapes an organisation’s cultural DNA by embedding change agility as a norm:
a. Peer Influence and Grassroots Advocacy
Champions serve as trusted peers who normalize change discussions, reducing fear and uncertainty.
Their ongoing active involvement signals to employees that change is continuous and manageable.
b. Building Collective Ownership
Shared responsibility for success is fostered as champions co-own change outcomes with leadership and project teams.
This prevents change being viewed as “something done to us” and instead as “something we drive together.”
c. Transparent Communication and Feedback Loops
Regular updates from champions create a two-way dialogue between employees and leaders.
Transparent sharing of data and progress builds trust and accountability.
d. Resilience and Adaptability
The readiness and skills of champions help the organisation respond dynamically to shifting priorities and emerging challenges.
4. Case Study Insights: Organisations Leading with Enterprise Change Champions
Many organizations have reaped significant benefits from this approach:
A global financial services firm reported a 30% faster adoption rate for technology transformations after establishing an enterprise champion network, alongside measurable improvements in employee engagement during change windows.
A large insurer credits their champion network with preventing change fatigue across multiple simultaneous programs by pacing adoption and tailoring communications locally, thereby maintaining high service continuity.
These examples highlight that a well-designed enterprise champion model is more than a support function. It is a strategic enabler of organisational resilience and talent development.
Closing Thoughts
Building a sustainable enterprise change champion model requires commitment, structure, and investment. But the payoff is clear: an organisation equipped not only to execute change more effectively but to cultivate the next generation of leaders who understand change at a deep level.
By proving impact through metrics, integrating champions into career pathways, and cultivating a culture of collective ownership and agility, senior change and transformation practitioners can transform their organisations into change-ready powerhouses.
If you’re keen on setting up an enterprise change champion group powered by change data insights, reach out and chat to us.
It used to be that change management is the ‘poor’, neglected cousin of other disciplines in terms of access to functional software to assist in its performance across every aspect of change and risk management. There is a wide range of software available for a range of project management disciplines such as, business analysis, testing, project management, portfolio management, etc. However, for change management, the pickings have been almost non-existent 10 years ago.
Fast forward to 2022, there is now a handful of change management software in the market to assist with various work categories for the change manager. However, there is still ways to go in the understand of organisational change management in the marketplace. Compilations of change management software offering on the internet is usually a mixture of all types of software, many of which are not organisational change management in nature, and instead, technical change management (used by IT folks). For example https://orgmapper.com/change-management-tool/
How does a change management process help a company?
A change management process helps a company by providing a structured approach to minimizing disruptions and transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. It minimizes resistance, enhances communication, and ensures that changes align with business goals, ultimately leading to smoother transitions and improved outcomes.
How can change management software help the change practitioner?
What is the implementation of change management?
The implementation of change management involves a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. It includes strategies for managing resistance, communication plans, and training initiatives to ensure that changes are adopted effectively and sustainable within the organization.
Project change delivery
The vast majority of change management professionals in the industry are focused on delivering projects and implementing effective change management strategies to enable them to make an informed decision about their approach. It’s no wonder that most change management tools, including project management software and various change tools, are focused to support the entire change process and project delivery as a result, maintaining consistency throughout all initiatives. What are some of the areas in which project change delivery work can be made easier by software?
1. Automating change management deliverable work
A significant part of the work of change management professionals is spent on preparing for and documenting a clear roadmap of change management deliverables. These include detailed impact assessment, learning plan, stakeholder matrix, and type of change plans, etc. These deliverables are critical documents which are critical dependency for other project milestones. For example, stakeholder analysis and matrix is critical before broader stakeholder engagement can be made, since the analysis reveals who the stakeholders are and how they may be engaged throughout the change process.
One of the biggest pains faced by change management professionals is the amount of time required to manually create these deliverable documents. The work can be tedious, requiring weeks of manual work to complete. For example, the stakeholder matrix document can be a brain-numbing piece of activity, wading through a data dump of the organisational directory to determine every Tom, Dick and Harry which titles and names should be included in the stakeholder list for the project. Then, a lot of similar information then must be re-typed and entered into different versions in other change management deliverable documents such as detailed impact assessment or learning needs analysis, ultimately affecting customer satisfaction.
Software can automate much of the manual work involved. For example, Change Automator, a robust workflow automation software, allows the ease of use to link data already captured earlier on in the project, such as the relevant stakeholders matrix, with other change management deliverables such as detailed impact assessment, to ensure the right people are involved and to minimise manual re-work. With the ability to track changes, any data updated in one document will therefore update content in other documents, including integrations with tools like Power BI. This then saves on the tedious re-work required when data is updated or changes, which is pretty much a given throughout the project lifecycle. From a quality perspective, this also ensures any human-error is reduced in the data that should be synchronised across documents.
A common risk in change management delivery is that stakeholders may be left out inadvertently, or that a previously captured stakeholder in the stakeholder matrix is left out in the engagement process due to human-error. The impact of this type of error can be disastrous to the outcome of the project. Having cross-linked documents in one central place reduces the risk for this type of error.
2. Change management survey (readiness and adoption)
A key part of change management success is through careful monitoring of stakeholders throughout the change process to ensure visibility. In the earlier part of the project, this involves understanding to what extent stakeholders may be clear of the objectives of the project, their roles in it, and general awareness. Later on in the project, it could be more on understanding their engagement level of support which can be a predictor of ultimate adoption and overall support for the change. This overall change readiness level should be monitored across the project through surveys or interviews.
Surveys are inherently time consuming to design, administer and report manually. Significant time can be taken throughout each phase of the survey process. This is a no-brainer in terms of using a software tool. Most projects use Microsoft Forms or SurveyMonkey to do the job. However, you may want more robust features such as conditional question design, for example, if a respondent answers ‘yes’ for not supporting the change, then an additional question pops up to ask why.
Surveys can include sentiment analysis where the focus of the survey is on any shifts in stakeholder feelings and attitudes toward the project. In this case, it is critical to define in detail the characters of each stakeholder group in concern. These would then determine respondent characteristics to measure in the survey design.
There are also tools that measure employee sentiments through corporate social media channels such as Yammer and Teams. For example, Swoop Analytics can help to measure collaboration styles and other behavioural insights about how employees interact with each other on those channels. The data map can reveal key influencers and core influential network connectors.
The biggest value of change surveys lies in the reporting. Most survey tools offer fairly simple reporting using bar charts or pie charts. For short, simple surveys these may suffice. However, if you are working on a fairly detailed change adoption tracking survey, more advanced reporting features may be required. You may want to easily change the colour scheme of the chart, change different chart types, identify anomalies and trends, or highlight certain parts of the data to make it easier for your audience.
3. Project change reporting
Having the ease and flexibility of experimenting with different chart designs is critical for stakeholder impact. If you need hours of work to come up with a few charts the likelihood is that you will not bother. Some stakeholders may also have various personal preferences which can easily take significant time to modify. This is especially when you need the time to focus on engaging with your stakeholders, rather than tweaking excel spreadsheets.
Creating the right AI dashboard can create significant impact on stakeholders and help achieve your change objectives. Data speaks for itself and the right data visualisation can create memorable impact more than words alone. If you are driving toward change adoption, then having an AI-enhanced dashboard of core behaviour changes and tracked capability shifts, along with key metrics and key features, can act as a core part of change governance conversations. With a monthly cadence of reviewing these core data points, stakeholders can hold each other accountable to understand remaining work involved and zoom in on how to drive full change adoption.
Change reporting may not be limited to just survey results. Even seemingly ‘boring’ spreadsheet data such as detailed impact assessment may be easily turned into highly visual and interesting reports to help stakeholders understand what the changes mean and how different groups are impacted by the change.
One of the more popular ways in which change delivery has adopted software is in leveraging digital tools that provide functions to onboard or train users of new or changed systems. There are numerous providers in this area. These include WalkMe, UserGuiding, and Userlane.
Most of the tools provide similar functions to help walk users through interfaces of the system and even allow interactive experience where users can be tested in clicking on the right part of the system as a part of the training or onboarding process. The application is always for system interfaces since the tool only supports web-based systems.
Change capability
Another way in which change management software may assist change practitioners is in building change management capabilities related to change capability and documentation methodologies. There are various tools that help to measure, track, and report on change management activities and assess the impact of change initiatives, including key performance indicators and change impact analysis. This clarity could be that you would like to measure the change leadership skills of leaders, change alignment agility of stakeholder groups, or test employees as a part of skills assessment to ensure they have the right skills for the new system or process.
Using change management software, you can easily pre-program test items and answers to make it easy for yourself to score and tabulate audit test results without any manual work. You can also assign weightings to different questions to evaluate the capability of the respondent as a part of an assessment. You can even configure the assessment to provide results to the respondent at the end of the assessment, and email the feedback as well. Generally, these features are only offered as a part of a learning management system where significant time and effort is required to prepare the system for the assessment. Now, digital tools offer easy point-and-click features, with pre-configured templates saving you significant time and cost.
Change portfolio management
Managing a portfolio of initiatives used to be an approach only adopted by more mature organisations. However, with the rapid pace and intensity of changes, more and more organisations are adopting this approach to manage multiple initiatives.
Managing a portfolio of initiatives can only be done via data. There is already a myriad of project portfolio management systems in the market to help PMOs and project portfolio managers manage a slew of initiatives. The focus of project portfolio management systems is on project timelines, cost, resourcing, etc.
Change portfolio management focuses on the impact of changes and how they may impact the organisation across initiatives. There is also focus on change delivery resourcing and change capability development. One of the most critical pain points faced by organisations is change saturation and change fatigue. To better manage a portfolio of initiatives from a change perspective and manage potential change saturation, data is required.
Effective change portfolio management tools can help you:
Identify and plot change saturation points for different parts of the organisation
Identify risk levels of potential change saturation across roles, locations, layers of the organisations, etc.
Assess to what extent changes may be better delivered as an integrated package to one part of the organisation, or broken down to smaller, more digestable chunks
Assess to what extent changes may be better aligned and delivered through integrated messaging from an impacted stakeholder perspective (vs. from project perspective)
In summary, there are many strong reasons why change management professionals should adopt digital change management solutions to achieve greater change outcomes as well as to automate the tedious parts of the work to gain time to spend with stakeholders. With the ever increasing pace of digitisation in organisations, change management must also follow suit in digitising itself. Just as we could use modern fabrication techniques to build skyscrapers that are stronger and more resilient vs using traditional brick and mortar, so should change managers in leveraging digital tools to support digital transformations.
An enterprise change management organisational structure defines who owns change capability, who delivers individual change programmes, and how authority and resources flow between them. The three common models are centralised (a single enterprise team owns all change delivery and methodology), federated (a central centre of excellence sets standards while embedded practitioners deliver in each business unit) and hybrid (a small central team plus delivery partners and on-demand specialist resources). The right choice depends on portfolio scale, organisational maturity, and how much variation each business unit needs in how change is delivered. None is universally correct, but the wrong choice creates friction and slowed adoption.
Exploring Organisational Structures for Optimal Enterprise Change Management
Change is an inherent part of every organization’s journey towards growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. In the realm of change management, one critical consideration is the organisational structure or design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organisational structures for organisations overall, there is not one way that is the most effective. It depends on the circumstances of the company in concern.
Centralised Change Management Structure
Centralised change management structures consolidate the authority, decision-making, and oversight of strategic change management initiatives within a single, dedicated team or department. In such a structure, the change management team sometimes reports directly to either Strategy or Office of the CEO. This approach provides the change practice significant influence due to its direct linkage with strategy.
Reporting Lines: HR, IT, Strategy, and More
In addition to the choice between centralised and federated structures, change management specialists (and the senior leaders that they report to) often grapple with determining the optimal reporting lines for their change teams. Several departments within an organisation are typically considered for hosting the change management function:
1. Human Resources (HR or People & Culture)
Reporting to HR aligns cultural change management with employee engagement and organisational development, which is essential for enhancing a company’s culture. This can be particularly effective when change initiatives heavily impact the workforce, as HR possesses expertise in people-related matters.
2. Information Technology (IT)
With the increasing digitalization of business processes, reporting to IT can ensure that complex technology-driven changes, including the introduction of new technology and digital transformation, as well as improvements in product offerings, are well led and managed across the enterprise. The remit for change practices reporting to IT can range from including just technology changes, to all strategic and funded initiatives, through to all of change management as a function.
3. Strategy or Transformation Office
Reporting to the strategy or transformation office closely ties change management to the organization’s overarching strategic goals. This alignment ensures that change initiatives are directly linked to long-term vision and objectives.
4. Operations
For a lot of organisations, the Operations function can determine a lot about how the organisation is run. This can include the change management function as well. The advantage of having the change practice reporting to Operation can mean that the operating rhythm of the organisation can be designed with the right change management approaches to support business goals. The way employees are engaged, how they’re involved, and how BAU processes are run, measured, and reported can be designed with change management interventions.
Key benefits of a centralised structure include:
Consistency: Centralised control ensures consistent change management practices across the organisation, reducing confusion and increasing effectiveness in terms of setting a common level of practice. Consistency in terms of language and concepts mean that it is easier for the business to adopt change management principles and practices.
Resource Allocation: Easier resource allocation, as the centralised team can prioritize and allocate resources based on organisational priorities. With better economy of scale for a larger centralised team, the change group has the opportunity to resource initiatives using different levels of involvement, from sessional, part-time to full-time.
Alignment: Enhanced alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives, as the change management team directly interfaces with top leadership. This means that effort and focus areas as more likely to be on that which is most strategic and can impact the organisation the most.
Change maturity. The change practice has the opportunity to focus on building organisation-wide change maturity due to its ability to interface and influence across the organisation. While other change management structures may also have the ability to focus on building business change maturity, a centralised function has the advantage of having a greater impact level due to its scale.
In contrast, federated change management structures distribute change management responsibilities throughout various business units or departments. Each business unit maintains its own change management team, and these teams collaborate to execute change initiatives. Typically, these teams report to their respective department heads. This means that there is no formal enterprise change management function.
The advantages of a federated structure include:
Local Expertise: Greater understanding of department-specific needs and challenges, leading to tailored change strategies and therefore better change outcomes. Different business units can have very different cultures and different business needs. Having change professionals who understand the various intricacies of the business unit means that they’re able to design change approaches that will better meet business requirements.
Ownership and relationship: There may be increased ownership and commitment among departmental staff, as the change teams sits in the same business unit and are ‘one of them’ versus someone sent from a centralised team. Others in the business unit may be more conducive to advice and support from a colleague in the same broader business unit. It is also easier to establish a closer working relationship if the change practitioner is always working with the same teams.
Flexibility: Greater adaptability to changes in individual departments, as they can independently address unique issues. Without any direction from a central team, the business-dedicated team can better flex their service offering to meet the business unit’s particular focus areas. Whilst, a central team may de-prioritise departmental-level initiatives to be less critical, for a departmental team it is much easier to flex toward their priorities.
Impact on Business Results
The choice of change management structure and reporting lines can significantly impact an organization’s overall business results. Here’s how different structures can yield varying outcomes:
Centralised Structure Outcomes
Efficiency: Centralised structures can excel in efficiency of delivery due to its scale of economy. Whereas small departmental change teams may structure to flex and resource projects efficiently, larger change practices can avoid this by leveraging its range of practitioners with different levels of skill sets and availability.
Consistency: They ensure a consistent approach to change management, reducing confusion among business stakeholders and employees. The consistency of standards also mean that there is less risk that initiatives may experienced a change intervention that is less effective due to the centralised capability standards reinforced.
Top-Down Control: Change initiatives are closely aligned with strategic objectives set by top leadership. This means that any ‘pet projects’ or less prioritised divisional initiatives may not be as likely to be granted change management support. This does not necessarily mean that those departments won’t focus on those initiatives, it just means that change management resources are more prioritised toward what top leadership deems to be most critical.
Federated Structure Outcomes
Local Engagement: Federated structures promote local ownership and engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among departmental staff. Department-specific change practitioners will be more familiar with ‘what works’ at the department level. They are better able to leverage the right engagement channels and have the ability to access management and leadership roles at the department to garner support and drive overall initiative focus and success.
Adaptability: They allow for greater adaptability to unique departmental needs, which can be crucial in complex organisations. For example, the types of change management approaches and interventions that work for Sales organisations will be very different compared to that for call centres or processing centres, especially as employees transition into new roles. The ability for the change practitioner to adapt locally, supported by a strong company culture, can make or break an initiative’s success.
Innovation: Different units can experiment with various change approaches, leading to innovative solutions. This can be done without the confines of what is the overarching ‘standards and guidelines’ from the centralised change team.
Comparing the three structural models
The following table summarises the key characteristics, strengths, and watch-outs of each structural approach, to help guide your decision.
Characteristic
Centralised
Federated
Hybrid
Decision-making
Central change team leads all decisions
Business units lead locally
Shared between centre and BUs
Consistency of practice
High
Variable
Moderate to high
Responsiveness to local needs
Low
High
High
Resource efficiency
High (no duplication)
Lower (distributed resourcing)
Moderate
Best suited to
Regulated industries, enterprise-wide programmes
Diverse business units, decentralised orgs
Large complex organisations with varied change types
Key risk
Becomes a bottleneck; perceived as disconnected
Inconsistent quality; reinventing the wheel
Role clarity issues; governance complexity
Choosing the Right Structure
The decision regarding the optimal change management structure should be rooted in the organization’s specific context, culture, and the nature of the changes it is undergoing to establish a new status quo. Experienced change management specialists understand that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not exist. Instead, they carefully consider the organization’s goals, resources, and capacity for change.
Also, it may not need to be either centralised or federated model. It can be a combination of both. For examples:
A federated model by reporting lines, however with a strong community of practice that is centralised and that promotes sharing of practices, standards, and even resources. This ensures that the overall group is connected to each other and new innovative approaches can be shared and proliferated
A centralised model by reporting lines, however with dedicated business-specific change partners that are focused on particular business units so that they are delivering business-focused change solutions. At the same time, the team still maintains a lot of the advantages of a centralised team.
The organisational structure and reporting lines for a change practice may influence various aspects of its work, however, this may not be the most critical part of how it creates value for the organisation. Other aspects in which a change practice should focus on in its development include:
Resourcing model. How to fund change management resources and the service delivery model to support a range of different projects with different needs for seniority, skill set, and even organisational tenure
Change methodology/framework. Organisations should work on at least a change management framework to set a minimum standard for change delivery. Using a generic off-the-shelf methodology may be OK, however they may not cater for the particular language and business needs of the organisation.
Change capability and leadership. Outside of project change delivery, the team should also work on gradually building change capability within the organisation to enhance the ability to drive and support change. This may not need to be in the form of training, it can also be done through structured development through real change projects.
Change portfolio/Enterprise change management. Beyond individual change delivery, the change team should also focus on how to deliver and land multiple initiatives at the same time. Most organisations need to drive change at a faster speed than previously and there is no luxury to only focus on one change at a time. How the team measures, tracks, and ‘traffic controls’ the multiple initiatives is crucial for its success.
To read more about managing a change portfolio visit our Change Portfolio Management section for a range of articles.
Change management structures and reporting lines are not just administrative choices; they can, in some ways, have a profound impact on an organization’s ability to achieve successful change outcomes. Experienced change management specialists must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of centralised and federated structures and align them with the specific needs of their organisation. By doing so, they can maximize their ability to navigate the complexities of change and drive the organisation toward a more agile, resilient, and adaptive future.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best organisational structure for a change management function?
There is no single best structure – the right model depends on the size of the organisation, the volume and complexity of its change portfolio, and the maturity of its change management capability. The four most common models are: centralised, federated, centre of excellence, and hybrid approaches combining elements of each.
How many change managers does an enterprise need?
A common rule of thumb for large organisations undergoing significant transformation is one dedicated change manager for every two to three major change initiatives running concurrently. A change portfolio management tool that tracks change impact and capacity can help quantify the actual demand on change management resources and build a more evidence-based staffing case.
Should change managers be embedded in project teams or centralised?
Both approaches have merit. Embedded change managers develop stronger stakeholder relationships. Centralised change managers develop broader organisational perspective and can manage cross-initiative dependencies more effectively. Many mature change functions use a hybrid model.
Most organisations treat change management as something that happens within projects. A sponsor is appointed, a communication plan is written, some training is delivered, and the initiative moves on. Then the next project starts, and the whole cycle repeats from scratch, as if the organisation learned nothing from the last one.
This project-by-project approach is the hallmark of low change management maturity. And it has a measurable cost. Prosci’s research shows that organisations with excellent change management are seven times more likely to meet project objectives. WTW’s 2023 global study of 600 organisations found that companies taking a proactive, data-driven approach to change management drove nearly three times more revenue than those with below-average change effectiveness. These results do not come from applying change management to one project at a time. They come from building it as a permanent organisational capability.
This guide provides a practical framework for assessing and advancing your organisation’s change management maturity, moving from ad hoc project support to embedded organisational competency.
What change management maturity means
Change management maturity describes the degree to which an organisation has embedded change management as a consistent, scalable, and continuously improving capability, rather than an activity performed inconsistently within individual projects.
Two established models have shaped the field. The Prosci Change Management Maturity Model evaluates organisations across five capability areas: leadership, application, competencies, standardisation, and socialisation. The Change Management Institute (CMI) model takes a similar five-level approach but emphasises three domains: project change management, business change readiness, and strategic change leadership.
Both models share a core insight: maturity is not about doing change management on more projects. It is about building the systems, governance, leadership behaviours, and measurement practices that make effective change management the default way the organisation operates.
The five levels of change management maturity
While the Prosci and CMI models differ in their specifics, they converge on a five-level progression. The framework below synthesises both into a practical model you can use for self-assessment.
| Level | Name | Characteristics | Typical pain points | |——-|——|—————-|——————-| | 1 | Ad hoc | No consistent CM approach. Success depends on individual heroics. | Repeated mistakes, no institutional learning, inconsistent stakeholder experience | | 2 | Emerging | Some projects apply CM, but methods and quality vary widely. | Pockets of excellence alongside projects with no CM at all; no shared tools or templates | | 3 | Standardised | Organisation-wide CM standards exist. Common tools, templates, and training. | Standards exist on paper but are not consistently enforced; compliance is uneven | | 4 | Managed | CM integrated into project governance. Metrics tracked and reported. Portfolio-level visibility. | Governance can feel bureaucratic; risk of CM becoming a checkbox exercise rather than strategic | | 5 | Optimised | CM is a core organisational competency. Continuous improvement, data-driven, enterprise-wide. | Maintaining momentum; avoiding complacency; adapting to new types of change (AI, automation) |
Most organisations sit at Level 1 or 2. Gartner’s research found that only 32% of business leaders report achieving healthy change adoption, which suggests that the majority of organisations have not yet built the capability infrastructure needed for consistent success.
Diagnosing your current maturity level
Before you can advance maturity, you need to know where you are. The following diagnostic questions map to each level and can be used as a practical self-assessment.
Level 1 diagnostic: Ad hoc
Is change management applied inconsistently, with some projects having dedicated CM support and others having none?
Do project teams create their own approaches from scratch each time?
Is there no central function, community of practice, or shared methodology for change management?
If you answered yes to most of these, your organisation is at Level 1. The priority is to establish a baseline methodology and begin demonstrating value on a small number of visible projects.
Level 2 diagnostic: Emerging
Do some project teams apply change management using a recognised methodology, but others do not?
Are there pockets of CM expertise but no organisation-wide standard?
Is change management viewed as a project-level activity rather than an organisational capability?
Level 2 organisations need to standardise their approach, building shared tools, templates, and training that create consistency across the project portfolio.
Level 3 diagnostic: Standardised
Does the organisation have a documented CM methodology, standard templates, and training programmes?
Are change practitioners trained in a common approach?
Is CM expected on all significant projects, even if enforcement is inconsistent?
Level 3 organisations have the foundations in place. The challenge is moving from standards that exist to standards that are enforced and integrated into governance. For more on building assessment capability, see our guide to change management assessments.
Level 4 diagnostic: Managed
Is CM formally integrated into project governance (gate reviews, investment decisions, steering committees)?
Are CM metrics tracked, reported, and used to inform decisions?
Does the organisation assess change at the portfolio level, not just initiative by initiative?
Is there executive-level accountability for change management effectiveness?
Level 4 organisations are performing well. The opportunity is to move from managed governance to true organisational capability, where CM is embedded in culture, not just process.
Level 5 diagnostic: Optimised
Is CM viewed as a strategic organisational competency, not a project support function?
Does the organisation continuously improve its CM practices based on data and lessons learned?
Are leaders at all levels competent in change leadership, not just change practitioners?
Is change management integrated into strategic planning, not just project delivery?
Level 5 is rare. Organisations that reach it treat change capability as a competitive advantage and invest accordingly.
The business case for investing in change management maturity
The evidence linking maturity to performance is strong and growing.
McKinsey’s research found that only 26% of transformations succeed at both improving performance and sustaining those improvements. However, organisations that take a rigorous, structured approach report success rates of 79%, three times the average. That gap represents the difference between ad hoc project-level change management and mature, systematic capability.
The financial implications are equally clear. WTW’s research found that “change accelerator” organisations outperformed on one-year revenue change (6% versus -30% for less capable organisations), three-year revenue growth (4% versus -7%), and gross profit margin (19% versus -13%).
These are not marginal differences. They represent the compounding effect of consistently managing change well across the entire organisation, which is precisely what maturity enables.
Common maturity traps to avoid
The journey from Level 1 to Level 5 is not linear, and several common mistakes can stall progress or create the illusion of maturity without the substance.
Over-investing in training without governance
Sending 200 people through change management certification does not build maturity if there is no governance framework requiring them to apply what they learned. Training builds individual competency; maturity requires organisational systems that activate and sustain that competency.
Confusing activity with capability
An organisation that produces change impact assessments, communication plans, and training schedules for every project may look mature. But if those artefacts are produced by rote without influencing decisions, they are documentation, not capability. True capability means the organisation uses change management data to make different decisions than it would otherwise make.
Trying to jump levels
Organisations at Level 1 sometimes attempt to leap directly to Level 4 by implementing enterprise-wide governance without first building the foundational methodology and skills. This typically produces a bureaucratic framework that practitioners resent and circumvent. Each level builds on the one below it.
Treating maturity as a destination
Level 5 is not a finish line. Organisations that reach high maturity must continue investing to maintain it, adapting their practices to new types of change (AI-driven transformation, continuous delivery models, distributed workforces) and refreshing their capability as experienced practitioners move on.
How to advance from your current level
Moving from Level 1 to Level 2
Focus on demonstrating value. Select 2-3 high-visibility projects and apply a structured CM methodology rigorously. Document outcomes and build an internal evidence base. Establish a small community of practice to begin sharing approaches and lessons learned.
Moving from Level 2 to Level 3
Standardise the methodology. Create organisation-wide templates, tools, and training. Establish minimum CM requirements for all projects above a defined threshold. Build or hire a central CM capability that supports project teams.
Moving from Level 3 to Level 4
Integrate CM into governance. Add CM criteria to project gate reviews and investment decisions. Build portfolio-level visibility of change load and adoption. Establish metrics and reporting that reach executive leadership. See our guide on measuring change management outcomes for practical measurement frameworks.
Moving from Level 4 to Level 5
Embed CM into culture. Develop change leadership competency at all management levels, not just among CM practitioners. Build continuous improvement mechanisms that use data to refine practices. Integrate CM into strategic planning, not just project delivery. Invest in digital platforms that enable real-time, portfolio-wide change intelligence.
How digital platforms accelerate maturity
Building change management maturity at Levels 3-5 requires data infrastructure that manual methods cannot provide. Portfolio-level visibility, real-time adoption tracking, cumulative impact analysis, and measurement dashboards all require tooling.
Digital change management platforms such as The Change Compass enable organisations to manage change at the portfolio level, visualise cumulative impact across stakeholder groups, and track adoption metrics in real time. This is particularly valuable for organisations at Level 3 and above, where the shift from project-level to portfolio-level capability requires data that spreadsheets and manual processes cannot sustain. For organisations moving beyond heatmaps toward dynamic analytics, digital platforms are not optional; they are foundational.
Change management maturity is not about achieving a perfect score on a model. It is about building the organisational capability to manage change consistently, measure its impact rigorously, and improve continuously. Start by diagnosing where you are today using the five-level framework. Identify the specific gaps between your current level and the next. Invest in the systems, governance, skills, and leadership behaviours that will close those gaps. The organisations that build change management maturity do not just deliver better individual projects; they build a compounding advantage that makes every subsequent transformation more likely to succeed.
Frequently asked questions
What is change management maturity? Change management maturity describes the degree to which an organisation has embedded change management as a consistent, scalable, and continuously improving capability. It progresses through five levels, from ad hoc project support to a core organisational competency integrated into governance, culture, and strategic planning.
How long does it take to advance change management maturity? Moving one level typically takes 12-24 months of sustained effort. Moving from Level 1 to Level 3 can take 2-4 years. Progress depends on executive sponsorship, investment in capability building, and willingness to integrate CM into governance. Trying to compress timelines by skipping levels typically backfires.
Do you need a consultant to build change management maturity? External consultants can accelerate specific stages, particularly initial methodology design and benchmarking against industry peers. However, sustainable maturity must be built internally. The most effective approach is to use external expertise to establish foundations and transfer capability, then build and maintain maturity through internal teams and systems.
What is the relationship between change management maturity and organisational culture? Culture and maturity reinforce each other. An organisation with a strong change culture, where leaders model adaptive behaviours and employees expect continuous improvement, will find it easier to advance maturity. Conversely, building maturity practices (governance, measurement, shared methodology) gradually shifts culture toward greater change capability. Neither can be built in isolation.
Can an organisation be at different maturity levels for different types of change? Yes. Many organisations demonstrate higher maturity for technology-driven changes (where project methodologies enforce CM) than for cultural or structural changes. This is common and worth diagnosing explicitly, as it reveals where targeted investment is needed.
How do you measure change management maturity? Use a structured self-assessment against the five maturity levels, evaluating capability areas such as methodology standardisation, governance integration, leadership competency, measurement practices, and portfolio-level visibility. Complement self-assessment with benchmarking against industry standards (Prosci or CMI models) and track progress annually.
Suggested title: Change management maturity: a practical guide to building organisational capability
Suggested meta description: Assess your change management maturity across 5 levels with diagnostic questions and a practical framework for advancing organisational capability.
