daddia Change Readiness Assessment
When to use
Assess people-side readiness across practice-defined dimensions; identify the binding constraint blocking adoption — not an average score.
What this skill does not do
- Does not map stakeholders — route to
/change-management:stakeholder-impact-mapif segments are missing. - Does not certify go-live — outputs are for human sign-off per practice profile gates.
- Does not invent adoption metrics — no fabricated survey scores or sentiment percentages.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Initiative context and timeline | Ask scope and target go-live |
| Stakeholder impact map (recommended) | Assess at highest level available; flag gap |
| Practice profile readiness dimensions | Use default set; [PROVISIONAL] |
Provisional mode
Without stakeholder map: assess program-level readiness only; flag [review] on segment-specific claims.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
hypothesis-driven-analysis):- High: Dimensions scored with cited evidence; binding constraint named with mechanism.
- Medium: Some dimensions self-reported or single-source; constraint hypothesized.
- Low: Scope or timeline unstated — halt or score scaffold only.
- Failure modes:
- Analytical rigor: Separate "willing" from "able"; don't conflate sponsor agreement with frontline readiness.
- Client confidentiality: Readiness politics sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header when material.
Workflow
Read practice profile — readiness dimensions, RAG definitions, past change history notes.
Score each dimension (from profile or defaults: leadership alignment, sponsor visibility, past change fatigue, capacity, skills/training, culture fit, resistance plan in place):
- Evidence — what supports the score (named artifact, interview, observation — not vibes).
- RAG — per profile definitions or Red/Amber/Green with explicit criteria.
- Gap — what would need to be true to move one notch.
Run the willing-vs-able test on the lowest-scoring frontline-facing dimension — leadership often scores Amber on alignment while frontline scores Red on ability; the binding constraint is usually the latter.
Identify binding constraint — single dimension whose failure would block adoption even if others pass; explain the mechanism (e.g. training incomplete → revert to old process under pressure).
Recommend response type — sponsor, comms, training, structural, or timing — without picking a single mandated action; link to downstream skills.
Output format
INITIATIVE: [name]
TARGET GO-LIVE: [date or window]
OVERALL PEOPLE READINESS RAG: [R/B/G] — [one-line rationale]
DIMENSION: [name]
RAG: [R/B/G]
Evidence: [source-tagged]
Gap to next level: [specific]
Willing vs able: [willing | able | both at risk — note]
BINDING CONSTRAINT: [dimension] — [mechanism]
RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TYPES: [sponsor | comms | training | structural | defer — options, not mandate]
UNSCORED / NEEDS EVIDENCE: [list, or "none"]
Worked example
Input: Go-live in 3 weeks, leadership "aligned," no training delivered to call-center agents.
Expected output: Binding constraint = skills/training (able, not willing); overall Red; defer or narrow scope flagged [review].
Quality checks before delivering
- Every dimension has evidence or explicit gap
- Binding constraint named with mechanism
- No invented adoption statistics
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/change-management/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /change-management:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: sponsor-roadmap or resistance-diagnosis.