Change Roadmap

Plan the change as phases that each have to prove something before the next one starts, give every activity one accountable owner, and keep supporting people until the new way is the normal way, not just until launch day.

Diffusion of innovations is strong research as a descriptive theory: adoption spreads over time, not at a single launch (Rogers, 2003). The RACI matrix is a practitioner convention with no canonical research original. Phasing, gates and support plans are practice, not research. Durations and thresholds on this page are rules of thumb.

Use it when:

• The change is decided and you need to plan how it actually happens.
• Several people or teams have to deliver parts of it, and ownership is fuzzy.
• A pilot is coming and you want to decide in advance what it must prove.

Skip it when:

• The change is not yet agreed or understood: build 3.10 Case for Change Page first.
• You need to understand who will resist and why: use 3.8 Resistance & Support Map, then come back.

Most of this page is working craft, not research: phase the work, decide what each phase must prove, name who owns what, and support people while old habits are still stronger than new ones. One claim does rest on evidence. Adoption is a process that spreads through a group over time, not an event at go-live (Rogers, 2003), so a roadmap that ends at launch ends too early.

The RACI matrix is a practitioner convention with no canonical research original. Its value is the arguments it forces into the open about who is actually accountable, not any tested effect.

The craft limit to respect: phases gated by dates rather than by evidence are a big bang in slow motion. The calendar moves on whether or not the pilot proved anything. So this page ties each phase to exit criteria, puts a go/no-go decision after the pilot, and defines done as sustained adoption rather than a launch date.

Pick one approach and give the reason in terms of risk, not preference.

Strong answer: "Pilot then scale: one home-care district first, because a lock failure means a care visit is missed, and we need to see the fallback work before 400 clients depend on it (illustrative)." Not: "Phased, because that is how we usually do it."

• ☐ Big bang
• ☐ Phased rollout
• ☐ Pilot then scale
• ☐ Parallel run (old and new side by side)

Why this approach:

Timeline (start to target completion):

Illustrative example: the roles, the organization and all numbers are made up.

A Swedish municipality's home-care manager is replacing physical key cabinets with digital locks for 400 clients across four districts.

Step 1: Pilot then scale. A failed lock means a missed care visit, so the fallback must be proven first. February to October.

Step 2: Preparation: negotiation with the union under MBL, lock installation, training. Pilot: one district, March to May; exit when every visit has opened with the digital key for four weeks and every lock failure was handled within the visit window. Expand: the other three districts, one a month. Go/no-go on 1 June, decided by the head of social services.

Step 3: Training: Responsible, the district coordinators; Accountable, the home-care manager. Communication with clients and families: Accountable, the customer-relations lead.

Step 4: A coordinator on call from 06:30 in go-live week, a fallback card on every key ring, daily ten-minute checks for a month.

Step 5: Top dependency: the lock supplier's installation schedule. Done: three months of digital keys in every district, then the routine moves into the normal home-care budget.