ADKAR® Barrier Diagnostic

Is it rational for these groups to want the change, given what they stand to lose?

• The loss each group carries has been named explicitly, not softened.Evidence rating for: The loss each group carries has been named explicitly, not softened.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Affected groups helped design the future state, not just review it.Evidence rating for: Affected groups helped design the future state, not just review it.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• What is protected — role, pay, standing, headcount — has been decided and said.Evidence rating for: What is protected — role, pay, standing, headcount — has been decided and said.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Objections are recorded and answered rather than managed around.Evidence rating for: Objections are recorded and answered rather than managed around.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.

First move: Name the loss out loud, decide what is protected, and put the affected groups inside the design rather than on the receiving end of it.

Is the future-state process and role defined well enough to be taught?

• The future-state process is documented at standard-work level.Evidence rating for: The future-state process is documented at standard-work level.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Roles, handoffs and decision rights are written, not assumed.Evidence rating for: Roles, handoffs and decision rights are written, not assumed.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Training exists for the actual future-state work, not the software alone.Evidence rating for: Training exists for the actual future-state work, not the software alone.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Exceptions and edge cases have a defined path.Evidence rating for: Exceptions and edge cases have a defined path.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.

First move: Define the future state to standard-work level — process, role, handoff, decision right — before any training is scheduled.

Can the work actually be done the new way, today, with what people have?

• Proficiency has been demonstrated in the real work, not in a classroom.Evidence rating for: Proficiency has been demonstrated in the real work, not in a classroom.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Capacity and time to work the new way exist in the schedule.Evidence rating for: Capacity and time to work the new way exist in the schedule.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Tools, access and data quality support the new way.Evidence rating for: Tools, access and data quality support the new way.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Workarounds are being counted, and the count is falling.Evidence rating for: Workarounds are being counted, and the count is falling.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.

First move: Remove the physical constraint — capacity, tooling, data quality, practice time — then verify demonstrated proficiency at the workplace.

Does the management system reward the new way, and stop rewarding the old one?

• Measures and targets reflect the new way, not the old one.Evidence rating for: Measures and targets reflect the new way, not the old one.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Leadership routines review the new way at a set cadence.Evidence rating for: Leadership routines review the new way at a set cadence.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• Recognition, escalation and consequence are aligned to the change.Evidence rating for: Recognition, escalation and consequence are aligned to the change.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.
• An owner in operations holds the standard after the project closes.Evidence rating for: An owner in operations holds the standard after the project closes.0 · Absent — No evidence this condition exists.1 · Partial — Exists in places, inconsistently.2 · Mostly — In place, with known gaps.3 · In place — Evident, consistent, and observable.

First move: Change the measures, the routines and the recognition so the old way is no longer the rational choice — then transfer ownership into operations.