Change Readiness Assessment

Generates a structured organizational readiness evaluation: stakeholder impact analysis, ADKAR-based readiness scoring, resistance heat map, change capacity assessment, and prioritized intervention plan.

Guiding Principle

You cannot adopt what you do not understand, and you cannot understand what you have not diagnosed. Resistance to change is not the enemy — it is information.

1. Resistance is data, not an obstacle. Every point of resistance reveals an unmet need, an uncommunicated risk, or an absent capability. The diagnosis transforms resistance into intervention requirements.
2. Readiness is measured, not assumed. Intuitions about "the team is ready" are insufficient. Every dimension of preparedness has observable and measurable indicators.
3. Technical change without organizational change is shelfware. The best architecture fails if the organization cannot absorb it.

Inputs

• $1 — Path to project context (discovery artifacts, stakeholder maps, org charts)
• $2 — Assessment scope: full (default), pulse (quick check), continuous (periodic)

Parse from $ARGUMENTS.

Parameters:

• {MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
• {FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual
• {MODO_OPERACIONAL}: diagnostico (default, full assessment) | rapido (quick pulse check, 5 dimensions only) | continuo (periodic re-assessment with delta tracking)
• {VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — scorecard + top interventions) | técnica (full, default)

Input Requirements

Mandatory:

• Stakeholder map or organizational chart (at minimum, key roles affected by the change)
• Description of the proposed change (technical transformation, new system, process change)

Recommended:

• Previous discovery artifacts (AS-IS analysis, scenario analysis, solution roadmap)
• Historical change data (previous transformation attempts, lessons learned)
• Team composition and tenure data
• Current communication channels and feedback mechanisms

Assumptions & Limits

Assumptions:

• Change initiative has a defined scope (not "everything is changing")
• At least 3 stakeholder groups identifiable
• Organization has some formal communication structure

Cannot do:

• Replace human interviews for sentiment analysis (can structure interview guides)
• Predict individual behavior (works at group/role level)
• Assess political dynamics beyond observable indicators
• Provide therapy or conflict resolution

Workarounds When Inputs Missing

Edge Cases

• Merger/acquisition context: Dual-org assessment. Separate scorecards per entity + combined view.
• Remote/distributed teams: Add digital readiness dimension. Weight communication channels differently.
• Regulated industry: Add compliance change dimension. Regulatory training as mandatory intervention.
• Startup/small org (<50): Simplify to 3 dimensions (awareness, capability, willingness). Skip formal cascade.
• Change fatigue detected: Escalate. Recommend change moratorium assessment before adding new change.
• Union/works council presence: Add formal consultation dimension. Legal review of intervention plan.

Trade-off Matrix

7-Section Framework

S1: Change Impact Profile

Scope definition: what is changing (technology, process, roles, culture). Impact matrix by stakeholder group. Change magnitude assessment (incremental → transformational scale 1-5).

S2: Stakeholder Readiness Scorecard (ADKAR)

Per stakeholder group, score 1-5 on each ADKAR dimension:

• Awareness: Do they understand WHY the change is needed?
• Desire: Do they WANT to participate and support?
• Knowledge: Do they know HOW to change?
• Ability: Can they IMPLEMENT the required skills/behaviors?
• Reinforcement: Are there mechanisms to SUSTAIN the change?

Barrier point = lowest-scoring dimension per group. Composite readiness score.

S3: Resistance Heat Map

Per stakeholder group: resistance level (1-5), resistance type (cognitive, emotional, behavioral, political), root causes, observable indicators. Heat map visualization (group x dimension).

S4: Change Capacity Assessment

Organization-level evaluation: concurrent change load, change history (success rate), leadership alignment, communication infrastructure, training capacity, budget for change management.

S5: Risk Register (Change-specific)

Top risks to adoption: probability x impact. Per risk: category (people, process, technology, timing), current mitigations, recommended interventions.

S6: Intervention Plan

Per barrier point identified in S2: targeted intervention, delivery mechanism, timeline, responsible party, success metric. Prioritized by: impact x feasibility.

S7: Measurement Framework

KPIs for tracking readiness over time: adoption rate, proficiency rate, utilization rate, satisfaction score. Measurement cadence. Dashboard specification.

Cross-Section Traceability

• S1 Impact Profile → S2 Readiness (impact determines which groups to assess)
• S2 ADKAR Scores → S3 Resistance (low scores = resistance indicators)
• S3 Resistance → S6 Interventions (resistance type determines intervention type)
• S4 Capacity → S6 Interventions (capacity constrains intervention feasibility)
• S5 Risks → S6 Interventions (risks drive mandatory interventions)
• S6 Interventions → S7 Measurement (each intervention has success metric)

Escalation to Human

• ADKAR scores <2 across >50% of stakeholder groups (systemic unreadiness)
• Active resistance from executive sponsor
• Change fatigue score >4 (organization overwhelmed)
• Political dynamics require mediation beyond assessment scope
• Union/legal constraints on proposed interventions

Execution Workflow

1. Scoping (30 min): Define change, identify stakeholder groups, select assessment depth
2. Data Collection (2-4 hours): Gather artifacts, analyze stakeholder map, review historical data
3. ADKAR Scoring (2-3 hours): Score each group on 5 dimensions with evidence
4. Synthesis (2-3 hours): Resistance map, risk register, intervention plan, measurement framework

Typical engagement: 2-3 days for organizations with <500 affected stakeholders.

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register — simple, clear, concise, direct)
• Attribution: Expert committee of the MetodologIA Discovery Framework
• Tagline: "Construido por profesionales, potenciado por la red agéntica de MetodologIA."

Output Artifact

Primary: Evaluacion_Readiness_{project}.md (or .html if {FORMATO}=html|dual) — Full 7-section readiness assessment with ADKAR scorecards, resistance heat map, and intervention plan.

Secondary: Readiness_Scorecard_{project}.md — Executive summary (S2 composite scores + top 3 interventions).

Included diagrams:

• Quadrant chart: stakeholder readiness positioning (readiness x influence)
• Heatmap: resistance by group x dimension
• Flowchart: intervention cascade logic

Validation Gate

• All 7 sections populated with evidence-based content (no placeholders)
• ADKAR scores backed by observable indicators, not assumptions
• Every intervention linked to specific barrier point from S2
• Resistance heat map covers all stakeholder groups from S1
• Risk register quantified (probability x impact)
• Measurement framework has concrete KPIs with targets
• Cross-section traceability complete

Output Format Protocol

Operational Modes

Additional Resources

References (Progressive Disclosure — Level 3)

• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/knowledge-graph.mmd — Domain knowledge graph
• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/body-of-knowledge.md — Academic and industry sources
• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/state-of-the-art.md — Trends 2024-2026

Examples

• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/examples/sample-output.md — Golden reference output
• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/examples/sample-output.html — Branded HTML

Prompts

• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/prompts/use-case-prompts.md — Ready-to-use prompts
• Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/prompts/metaprompts.md — Meta-strategies

Casos Borde

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["Change Readiness Assessment"]
        A["Change Impact Profile"] --> B["ADKAR Scorecard"]
        B --> C["Resistance Heat Map"]
        C --> D["Intervention Plan"]
        D --> E["Measurement Framework"]
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        F["Stakeholder Map"] --> A
        G["Change Description"] --> A
        H["Historical Change Data"] --> B
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        E --> I["Readiness Report"]
        D --> J["Executive Scorecard"]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        K["adoption-strategy"] -.-> D
        L["solution-roadmap"] -.-> A
        M["user-representative"] -.-> B
    end

Output Templates

Markdown (default)

• Filename: Evaluacion_Readiness_{cliente}_{WIP}.md
• Structure: TL;DR > Change Impact Profile > ADKAR Scorecards per group > Resistance Heat Map > Change Capacity > Risk Register > Intervention Plan > Measurement KPIs > Mermaid quadrant + heatmap + flowchart > ghost menu

PPTX

• Filename: Evaluacion_Readiness_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx
• Structure: Executive summary slide > Impact profile visual > ADKAR radar chart per group > Heat map slide > Top 5 interventions > KPI dashboard spec; speaker notes with evidence and escalation triggers

HTML (bajo demanda)

• Filename: Evaluacion_Readiness_{cliente}_{WIP}.html
• Estructura: HTML self-contained branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Dark-First Executive page con ADKAR scorecards por grupo, resistance heatmap interactivo, y plan de intervenciones priorizado. WCAG AA, responsive, print-ready.

DOCX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx
• Via python-docx con Design System MetodologIA v5. Cover page, TOC auto, headers/footers branded, tablas zebra. Para circulacion formal y auditoria.

XLSX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx
• Via openpyxl con Design System MetodologIA v5. Headers branded (fondo navy, texto blanco, Poppins), formato condicional con colores semaforo, auto-filtros, valores sin formulas. Para scorecard ADKAR por grupo de stakeholders, registro de riesgos de cambio y tracking del plan de intervenciones.

Evaluacion

Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension para considerar el skill production-ready.