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

Missing Input	Impact	Workaround
No stakeholder map	Cannot segment readiness	Infer from org chart + project RACI; flag as [INFERENCIA]
No change description	Cannot assess impact	Use solution roadmap or AS-IS delta; flag scope
No historical data	Cannot benchmark	Use industry benchmarks (Prosci data); flag as [SUPUESTO]
No org chart	Cannot map cascade	Use project team structure as proxy

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

Decision	Enables	Constrains	When to Use
Full ADKAR assessment	Granular dimension scoring, targeted interventions	3-5 days, requires stakeholder access	High-impact transformation, regulated environments
Quick pulse (rapido)	Fast signal, trend tracking	Misses nuance, no intervention plan	Periodic check-ins, early project phases
Continuous tracking	Trend visibility, early warning	Ongoing effort, survey fatigue risk	Multi-phase transformations >6 months

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

Format	Default	Description
markdown	✅	Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient.
html	On demand	Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact.
dual	On demand	Both formats.

Operational Modes

Mode	Focus	Best For
diagnostico (default)	Full 7-section assessment	Pre-transformation, Phase 5b
rapido	S1 + S2 + S3 only, simplified scoring	Pulse checks, early phases
continuo	Delta tracking vs. previous assessment, trend analysis	Multi-phase programs

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

Caso	Estrategia de Manejo
Organization undergoing simultaneous M&A and technology transformation	Produce dual-org ADKAR scorecards (acquiring + acquired entity); create a combined view with weighted averages; flag culture clash as a dedicated risk dimension
ADKAR scores are uniformly low (<2) across all stakeholder groups	Escalate to executive sponsor immediately; recommend a "readiness sprint" (4-6 weeks) before proceeding with transformation; the organization is not ready to absorb the change
Change readiness assessment requested but no stakeholder map exists	Infer stakeholder groups from org chart, project RACI, or solution roadmap team section; tag all groupings as [INFERENCIA]; recommend stakeholder mapping as a prerequisite
Assessment reveals executive sponsor is the primary source of resistance	Document the finding with observable indicators only (not personal judgments); escalate to the next governance level; recommend executive coaching or sponsor replacement as intervention options

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Decision	Alternativa Descartada	Justificacion
Use ADKAR as the primary readiness framework	Kotter 8-Step or Lewin 3-Phase models	ADKAR provides per-dimension scoring at the individual/group level, enabling targeted interventions; Kotter and Lewin are organizational-level and harder to operationalize for specific barrier points
Measure readiness at stakeholder-group level, not individual level	Individual-level assessment for every affected person	Individual assessment does not scale beyond 50 people; group-level patterns are sufficient for intervention design and respect assessment effort constraints
Require observable indicators for every ADKAR score	Allow self-reported readiness surveys as primary evidence	Self-reported readiness suffers from social desirability bias; observable indicators (attendance, participation, skill demonstrations) provide more reliable data

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

Dimension	Peso	Criterio
Trigger Accuracy	10%	Descripcion activa triggers correctos sin falsos positivos
Completeness	25%	Todos los entregables cubren el dominio sin huecos
Clarity	20%	Instrucciones ejecutables sin ambiguedad
Robustness	20%	Maneja edge cases y variantes de input
Efficiency	10%	Proceso no tiene pasos redundantes
Value Density	15%	Cada seccion aporta valor practico directo

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

---