| name | codexkit-change-management-plan |
| description | Build change management plans using ADKAR and Kotter's 8-Step framework. Covers stakeholder readiness, communication plans, training schedules, resistance management, and adoption metrics. Use when rolling out new systems, reorganizations, or process changes that affect people. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| category | scaffolding |
Change Management Plan
When to Use
- When rolling out a new system or tool to an organization
- When restructuring teams or processes
- When policy changes affect daily workflows
- When previous change initiatives failed due to poor adoption
Procedure
Step 1 — Change Definition
| Element | Description |
|---|
| What is changing? | [Current state → Future state] |
| Why? | [Business driver / burning platform] |
| Who is affected? | [Roles, teams, departments] |
| When? | [Timeline with milestones] |
| Scale | Minor (team) / Moderate (department) / Major (organization) |
Step 2 — ADKAR Assessment
Score each element 1–5 for the affected population:
| ADKAR Element | Score | Gap? | Intervention |
|---|
| Awareness — know why change is needed | 3 | Yes | Leadership comms |
| Desire — want to participate | 2 | Yes | WIIFM messaging |
| Knowledge — know how to change | 1 | Yes | Training program |
| Ability — can demonstrate new skills | 1 | Yes | Practice + coaching |
| Reinforcement — sustain the change | TBD | — | Post-launch support |
Focus on the first gap — you can't build Desire without Awareness.
Step 3 — Stakeholder Map
| Stakeholder | Impact | Influence | Current Stance | Target Stance | Strategy |
|---|
| CTO | High | High | Champion | Champion | Activate as sponsor |
| Team leads | High | Medium | Neutral | Supportive | 1:1 briefings |
| End users | High | Low | Resistant | Accepting | Demo + early wins |
Step 4 — Communication Plan
| Date | Audience | Channel | Message | Sender | Goal |
|---|
| Week 1 | All staff | Town hall | Why we're changing | CEO | Awareness |
| Week 2 | Team leads | Workshop | What it means for your team | PM | Desire |
| Week 3 | Users | Email + Video | How it works | Project team | Knowledge |
| Ongoing | All | Slack channel | Tips, wins, FAQ | Champions | Reinforcement |
Step 5 — Training Schedule
| Session | Audience | Format | Duration | Pre-requisite |
|---|
| Overview | All users | Webinar | 30 min | None |
| Hands-on | Power users | Workshop | 2 hours | Overview |
| Admin training | IT admins | Lab | 4 hours | Hands-on |
Step 6 — Resistance Management
Common resistance patterns and responses:
| Resistance | Root Cause | Response |
|---|
| "This is a waste of time" | No awareness of why | Share business case + data |
| "The old way works fine" | Comfort with status quo | Show pain points of current state |
| "I don't know how" | Lack of training | Provide resources + coaching |
| "This won't work here" | Past failures | Address specifically with new approach |
Step 7 — Adoption Metrics
| Metric | Target | Measurement | Cadence |
|---|
| Training completion | >90% | LMS records | Weekly |
| System usage (DAU) | >70% of target | Analytics | Daily |
| Help desk tickets | Decreasing trend | Ticket system | Weekly |
| User satisfaction | >3.5/5 | Pulse survey | Monthly |
| Process compliance | >85% | Audit checks | Monthly |
Inputs
| Input | Required | Format |
|---|
| Change description | Yes | Current → future state |
| Affected stakeholders | Yes | Roles and departments |
| Timeline | Yes | Key milestones |
| Previous change attempts | Recommended | What worked / didn't |
Output
## Change Management Plan — [Initiative Name]
### Change Summary
Migrating from Jira to Linear for project management across 4 engineering
teams (85 people). Go-live: Q2 2024.
### ADKAR Assessment
[Scored table with gaps and interventions]
### Stakeholder Map
[Impact × influence matrix]
### Communication Calendar
[Phased communication plan]
### Training Schedule
[Session plan by audience]
### Adoption Dashboard
[KPIs with targets and measurement plan]
Definition of Done
Quality Criteria
Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|---|
| Correctness | Does the draft structure follow the stated framework or industry standard? |
| Completeness | Are all required sections present with substantive (not placeholder) content? |
| Context-fit | Does tone, detail level, and terminology match the intended audience? |
| Consequence | If sent to the intended recipient without further editing, what would fail? |
Edge Cases
- No existing template for this type — Use the closest available template and document all customizations made.
- Stakeholder requirements conflict — Flag conflicts explicitly in the draft. Do not silently choose one requirement over another.
- Output required in multiple formats — Produce the canonical format first, then derive others. Note any formatting limitations.
Changelog
