Change Readiness Assessment Template
Three documents and three sheets that score readiness from what happened the client's last three change initiatives, never from a stakeholder's stated confidence.
Free download · No account needed
Readiness by Dimension · Thistlewood Bennett · scored from three prior change initiatives
Every score reads a figure off the track record, not a feeling
| Dimension | Evidence | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsorship holds under pressure | 0 of 3 exceptions held | Weak |
| Training reaches the front line | 90.7% avg attendance | Strong |
| Adoption sustains past launch | 31.3 pt avg gap at 90 days | Weak |
| Reinforcement exists after go-live | 0 of 3 had a dated check | Weak |
Three of four dimensions read Weak, and none of them was scored by asking anyone how ready they feel. A partner asked directly would very likely say yes; the same partners have granted every exception ever asked of them.
Search this and every result hands the reader the same instrument: a questionnaire scoring how ready stakeholders say they feel about a change that has not happened yet. HM Treasury's own guidance for appraising public projects names why that fails, for a different kind of forecast. Appraisers have a documented tendency to be over-optimistic, and the fix is to anchor the estimate in data from past projects rather than a fresh prediction. A change readiness self-report is the identical optimistic forecast, aimed at people instead of budgets.
This pack runs that fix on organisational change. It never asks anyone to rate their readiness. It builds a Prior Change Outcome Analysis from what actually happened the last two or three times this client tried to change something: planned rollout against actual, adoption target against what was measured ninety days later. It then classifies what got in the way against Kotter's eight reasons transformation efforts fail. Every dimension on the Readiness by Dimension sheet reads a figure off that record, per the diagnostic assessment pack's own anchor-per-level discipline, never a judgment call.
Thistlewood Bennett, a 165-person accounting and advisory firm, lost 94 adoption points across its last three initiatives. Its partners granted every exception ever asked of them during rollout: zero holds out of three tests. Prosci's benchmarking research has found active, visible sponsorship the single largest contributor to a change succeeding in every study since 1998. That sponsorship record, never held under pressure, is the finding that changes what the new initiative needs before launch. Score the org chart instead with the organizational design assessment, or size the risk with the risk and controls assessment.
What's in the pack
Prior Change Outcome Analysis
Each past initiative's planned rollout against what actually happened, and its adoption target against what was measured ninety days later, in points.
Blocker Register
What specifically got in the way of each past initiative, classified against Kotter's eight-error taxonomy rather than a generic resistance label.
Readiness by Dimension
Four dimensions scored from a specific figure on the two sheets above, never from a stakeholder's stated confidence about the change ahead.
How the Track Record Method Works
The full method connecting a documented bias in project appraisal to why a readiness self-report fails the same way, and how the fix transfers.
Readiness Findings
The dimension profile read together as one pattern, naming exactly what it predicts for the change now being asked for rather than a blended score.
Pre-conditions Note
One specific, checkable requirement per weak dimension, each tied to the exact evidence that made it weak, with nothing added to a dimension that already works.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or take it blank
Open the pack in River and send whatever record exists of the last two or three change initiatives, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets and work through them yourself.
- 2
Log what actually happened
Build the Prior Change Outcome Analysis from real planned-versus-measured figures, then classify each blocker against the eight-error taxonomy rather than a generic label.
- 3
Score dimensions from the record
Read each readiness dimension's score directly off the two sheets above, never from a stakeholder's stated intention or confidence about the change ahead.
- 4
Write pre-conditions, not a pep talk
Turn every weak dimension into one specific, checkable requirement tied to the evidence, and leave any dimension that already scores strong alone.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. The zip is Word documents and CSV sheets, no account and no card. Edit with AI is the optional half: the agent builds the Outcome Analysis and Blocker Register from your own records and scores every dimension. More sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Three Word documents and three CSV sheets in one zip, no conversion needed. The sheets carry the columns that do the work: planned versus measured figures, blocker classifications, and dimension scores. Open them in Excel, Numbers or Google Sheets.
What does Edit with AI actually do?
It reads whatever record you have of past change initiatives: planned rollouts, adoption figures, training attendance, exception requests. It then builds the Outcome Analysis and Blocker Register, and scores each readiness dimension from those two sheets.
How is this different from a readiness survey?
A survey asks people how ready they feel about a change that has not happened yet. This pack scores readiness from what the same organization actually did the last few times it tried to change something, which is what HM Treasury's own project-appraisal guidance recommends for the identical optimism problem.
What if we have no record of past change initiatives?
Any dimension with no track record to draw on gets marked Untested rather than guessed, with the specific evidence named that would resolve it. A first attempt at tracking change usually starts here rather than with a full scored profile.
Does a Weak sponsorship score mean the sponsor is the problem?
It means the sponsor has not held under pressure the times it was already tested, stated as a fact rather than a criticism. The Pre-conditions Note turns that into a specific written commitment, not a judgment about the person.
Score readiness from what actually happened
Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or send River the record of the last few change initiatives and get back a scored, evidenced dimension profile.
Edit with AI