1

Change Management diagnostics: understanding the organizational context

Different methodologies and tools can be used to map and/or prepare the Change Management
dimension of Projects. In the below example, an illustration will be provided of the preliminary
evaluation of the Change Climate, the Stakeholders Mindset, and the Project Impact. Further, it will
be explained how this outcome has been used in the beginning of the Project process, and how the
information can be used for a time differentiated diagnosis, in a later stage of the Project.
The Framework
To make it easier to embed human, process or technology driven changes in the Project ecosystem, it
is essential to understand the ecosystem first. This can be done through the evaluation of three
complementary drivers. As briefly presented in our previous newsletter, these are the Climate for
Change, the Mindset of the Stakeholders, and the Impact of the Project:

The evaluation of the Change Management Climate gives an indication of the recent
exposure to Change in function of the past track record. It is influenced by aspects such as
the quality of the internal communication, priority setting habits, the way resistance to
Change is managed, the presence of Change Agents, and the like.
It is built through interviews with key Stakeholders. The results indicate the organizational
aspects requiring additional attention. This can range from the consistent trainings for each
Project, to priority setting rigor on Management level,
People who appear to be
or consistency in the decision-taking process.
resisting Change may simply be
The Stakeholder assessment evaluates the willingness
the victim of bad habits. Habit,
to change versus the capability to change. Usually,
like gravity, never takes a day off.
people are interviewed in each group of Stakeholders.
This helps in identifying eventual Change Agents
P. Gibbons
capable to mentor colleagues or support the project.
Adversely, it might shed light on the more change-resistant departments, requiring specific
Change Management attention.
The Project Impact assessment evaluates who will feel the biggest impact on what level.
Traditionally, angles to explore will be: Organization, Governance, Culture, Technology and
Business Processes.

In our case, the Change diagnostics have been done for a company putting in place a crossdepartmental transformation Project, aiming at a more standardized way of working throughout its
various sites. The Change climate has been evaluated by the Executive Director. The Stakeholder
assessment is based on a self-assessment by Senior Managers of each division. The aggregated
picture shows the final graph. The Project Impact assessment is based on the feedback of the
Executive Director.
The Results
The combined results indicate a Project in an environment with a limited Change track-record; a
moderately positive Stakeholder support; and the highest impact of the Project being expected on
business processes and organizational fluidity.

JRGEN JANSSENS

2
To take this Change Management Climate
into account, it was advised to capture the
outcome from previous Projects and make a
selective use of good practices and internal
experts, focus on quick-wins to reassure and
involve users, and put extra focus in
communication, business involvement and
transparent reporting.
The Stakeholder assessment showed an
Change Management climate, Stakeholder
environment favorable to Change, but with a
assessment, Project Impact assessment.
strong need for coaching, to turn convictions
into practice. The assessment of the
Stakeholders went in the same direction by
showing that a part of the departments was
composed by people able to support the
initiative from a Change Management angle, but requiring guidance to be real Change Agents.
The Reality
A couple of questions can be asked, as well in the given case as from a more general perspective:
Value: Was the preliminary analysis in line with later reality?
Completeness: Was this assessment(s) enough to define subsequent actions? Were/are
other tools needed to come to a complete action plan?
Continuity: Was/Is a periodic reevaluation of these pillars needed?
In the current case, the preliminary analysis proved to be a good illustration of the reality, and useful
to fine-tune the actions for the Project preparation. For instance, the stronger guidance of certain
departments resulted in a better mutual understanding, and a more successful kick-off of the first
project steps. Also, taking into account the specificities of certain environments ensured a proper
coaching of and a smoother learning curve for a series of (future) Change Agents.
The Project impact turned out to be in line with what was expected, albeit with a slightly more faded
understanding. As the Project involved organizational changes, process changes and changes in
technology, some departments showed a strong reluctance towards the adaption of the new
technology, early on. Once it was understood (through focused guidance and Change actions) that
technology was not a goal on itself, people understood that the key for success went also through
switching towards the new (process) way of working. This appeared to be especially important for
transversal collaboration, across the former departmental borders.
Generally speaking, there are three important side notes to retain:
- It is an illusion to expect a framework/tool to be 100% fully fool/fail/- proof. In the given
case, it provides specific insights that have to be used in complement with other information,
and nourishes some of the Project Plans. The same is valid for most tools: they are there to
provide insights in specific parts of the big picture, or have to be adapted to the reality. Using
the outcome blindly is therefore not an option. An open mind remains key.
- Not all Change related variables and/or events can be anticipated at the start of the Project.
Examples are plenty: the internal/external move of some key Change Agents (or even of the
Project Sponsor), the announcement of a restructuration due to financially troubled markets,
disastrous sales numbers due to sudden geopolitical earthquakes Independent of the tool,
healthy Project management combines solid foundations with future quality gates.

JRGEN JANSSENS

3
-

People remain people. It is therefore possible that the Project drive of resources regresses,
despite a qualitative Change Management preparation. Long lasting programs, for example,
need to stay alert towards the real risk of mental saturation of people. The enthousiasm
from the beginning of a project can namely seriously wear off over time. This reinforces,
once again, the importance of a holistic vision, and periodic quality gates.

The Continuity
To ensure that the outcome of the evaluation keeps its added value over time, different approaches
can be followed.
A first one consists of the periodic re-evaluation of the different Change Management parameters, as
indicated above. This will provide an actualized view of the situation, and the difference between the
different evaluation moments gives additional insights in the progress/regression.
A second approach entails the focus on the actions, rather than on the evaluation itself. Concretely,
the initial assessment provides clear insights, out of which action plans can be derived (Change
Management plan, Communication plan), necessary to shape the foundations of the Project. After
the initial diagnosis and Project shaping, one can therefore focus on the follow-up of the plans,
rather than on the intermediate iterations as such. This will avoid that Change and Project
Management guidance is, for example, burdened by the fact that Senior Stakeholders have not
enough time to go periodically through the entire evaluation process.
Both approaches are however not mutually exclusive. A third one consists therefore of combining the
two first ones, by doing a sound check every x months (or at the delivery of a major milestone or
rollout), while focusing on Project Plan related actions in between.
Overall, the statement of K. Morgan is thus very applicable when using the discussed framework, as
well as when using other tools: Changes are inevitable and not always controllable. What can be
controlled is how you manage, react to and work through the Change process.
Going through multi-dimensional Change Diagnostics is very powerful as a start. To ensure that the
value lasts over time, it is a matter of using the information wisely, following up on the defined
actions, and remaining aware that the Project ecosystem remains in constant Change, including the
people.

Information about the Author: https://be.linkedin.com/in/janssensjurgen

Information about QSpin : http://www.qspin.be/index.php/about-qspin/

JRGEN JANSSENS