When I first got into change management, I was drawn to the popular change models such as Kotter’s, Lewin’s, and ADKAR. They’re practical, relatable, and provide a clear path. I still use them now. But I’ve learned over the years that change methodologies alone are not enough. Without assurance frameworks supporting decisions in change, like ISO 10020, change initiatives risk doing more harm than good.
My preferred change management methodologies.
John Kotter’s 8-Step
John Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model supports me when leading strategic or organisation-wide change initiatives in asset management. It provides a structured process and meaningful guidance for each phase of the transformation. This is useful when aligning asset management practices with broader organisational objectives, such as those outlined in the Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) or ISO 55001 requirements.
The model starts by helping build a strong sense of urgency, essential when shifting mindsets from maintenance-focused “management of assets” to a whole-of-life “asset management” thinking. Establishing a guiding coalition, or what we might call the ‘coalition of the willing’, is critical in asset management programs that cut across finance, operations, procurement, and executive leadership. This cross-functional alignment is foundational to delivering integrated asset strategies. (aka “the coordinated activity of an organisation”).
As you move through the stages from creating and communicating a vision to empowering action and celebrating short-term wins, Kotter’s model helps maintain momentum and engagement across the asset lifecycle. The framework is flexible and can be tailored to different phases of the asset maturity journey, ensuring change is embedded, sustained, and continually improved as part of our asset management system.
The ADKAR model
The ADKAR model, developed by Jeff Hiatt/Prosci, is really effective when I need to support individuals and teams through tactical change within an asset management context. Unlike broader organisational change models, ADKAR focuses on the people side of change at a more granular level, which helps ensure that change is adopted, not just implemented. In asset management, tactical change often involves new systems, processes, or practices, such as introducing asset data standards, shifting from reactive to proactive maintenance, or embedding risk-based decision-making across teams.
ADKAR breaks down change into five distinct stages: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. This structured approach enables me to identify where individuals or stakeholder groups might be struggling and apply targeted interventions (stick vs carrot). For example, building Awareness around why we’re moving to a whole-of-life asset management approach is key for maintenance crews that are used to short-term fixes (my previous working life). Generating Desire among engineers and planners may involve demonstrating how new tools or processes reduce rework or improve lifecycle outcomes.
Knowledge and Ability focuses on providing the right training, job aids, instructions or process clarity, which is critical when implementing new systems or redefined roles (eg RASI). Reinforcement then ensures these behaviours stick, through feedback loops, performance metrics (lag and lead), and recognition.
Overall, ADKAR complements strategic frameworks like Kotter’s model by giving me a practical, people-centred method to embed tactical asset management improvements, ensuring that individuals are ready, willing, and able to sustain the change.
Kurt Lewin’s Change Model
Kurt Lewin’s Change Model is my go-to choice when managing operational-level change in asset management. Its simplicity and clarity make it highly effective in environments where frontline teams, technical processes, and habits/norms must shift to support improved asset performance and lifecycle outcomes.
The model is based on three core stages: Unfreeze, Change, and Refreeze. In the asset management context, the ‘Unfreeze’ phase is critical. It reminds us that before we can introduce any new tools, procedures, or behaviours, whether it’s a shift to condition-based maintenance, new asset data requirements, or updated risk protocols, we must first challenge and ‘unfreeze’ the current ways of working (and thinking). This involves surfacing legacy mindsets, routines, and process shortcuts that may have worked in a reactive environment but are misaligned with proactive, integrated asset management.
Once teams are open to change, we move into the ‘Change’ phase. Here, we implement the improvements, which could involve deploying a new asset information system, standardising asset hierarchies, or introducing lifecycle cost modelling into procurement. This stage often requires hands-on support, clear communication, job role clarity (RASI), and capability development to ensure uptake at the operational level.
Finally, the ‘Refreeze’ phase ensures that the new behaviours, processes, and tools become the new normal or business as usual (BAU). In asset management, this means embedding changes into procedures, ensuring alignment with the Asset Management System (assurance), and supporting ongoing performance monitoring and continuous improvement (PDCA). Without this stabilisation, teams may revert to old habits, undermining both short- and long-term outcomes.
Lewin’s model, while simple, is really powerful in helping teams transition from legacy operations to disciplined, lifecycle-based asset management practices.
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’s Change Curve
The Kübler-Ross’s Change Curve allows me to view change not just through a technical or procedural lens, but through a human one. In asset management, particularly during transformation initiatives such as moving from reactive to predictive maintenance, integrating digital asset systems, or implementing ISO 55001, people are often asked to shift behaviours, routines, and beliefs. The Change Curve reminds me to approach these transitions with empathy and, at times, sympathy.
The model outlines the emotional journey individuals often experience when faced with change (minor or significant): starting with denial, moving through resistance and frustration, and eventually progressing toward acceptance and commitment. In asset management, this curve is visible in real time. Maintenance teams might initially deny the value of condition monitoring tools or embracing risk-based techniques such as FMECA/RCM. Engineers may feel anger or fear about new data-driven decision making replacing their experience-based judgment. And support functions might feel overwhelmed by the perceived complexity of asset lifecycle (systems) thinking.
By understanding these emotional responses (and recognising them in the moment), I can better tailor my messaging, communication strategies, and engagement. During the early stages of denial or resistance, I focus on building trust, validating concerns, and showing that their experience is valued. As people begin to accept the change, I shift to more empowering messages that reinforce capability and clarify the benefits, such as reduced unplanned downtime, better budgeting, or improved asset (service) availability.
Incorporating the Kübler-Ross Change Curve into asset management change initiatives helps ensure that we don’t just implement change (do stuff), we bring people with us. It strengthens our ability to lead with empathy while still aligning individuals and teams to the strategic objectives embedded in the Asset Management System and the organisation’s broader value framework.
Change Governance and Control
Unfortunately, none of these models include any formal governance. They don’t define roles and responsibilities, how to escalate issues, or explicitly measure performance (delivery and outcomes). They help you design the change, but not manage it at a larger scale or sustain it over an extended period. Don’t get me wrong, this is my observation and not a criticism. One thing can’t be everything to everyone!
That’s where ISO 10020 comes in. It is relatively new as it came out in 2022. It provides assurance for change management. It assures our change efforts are aligned with strategic objectives, monitored through governance structures, and reinforced through reporting and accountability. Without it, change programs can easily spiral with too many people doing their own thing, or worse, pulling in opposite directions.
I’ve seen great change initiatives start strong but soon flounder because the change tool was right, but the oversight (assurance) wasn’t there. And I’ve seen others succeed because they were part of a well-governed, transparent change system. ISO 10020 doesn’t replace ADKAR, Kotter, or Lewin; it strengthens them. It provides the guardrails, structure, and discipline that change needs to stick.
Effective Change Governance:
-
Protects the integrity of the change.
-
Maintains alignment, assurance, leadership, and value.
-
Provides a line of sight between actions (tasks) and intentions (goals).
-
Encourages accountability across roles and functions.
-
Ensures that change is controlled and deliberate, not reactive.
-
Selects the right people (roles) to approve or modify aspects of the change.
-
Drives accountability and traceability for decisions.
-
Assesses risks associated with any deviation from the plan are understood and mitigated.
So next time you’re planning a change initiative, don’t just ask which methodology to use. Ask how you’ll govern it. Because that’s what turns the theory of change into outcomes and impact.
#ChangeManagement #OrganizationalChange #ChangeLeadership #LeadingChange #ChangeSuccess #ADKAR #KotterChangeModel #LewinsChangeModel #Prosci #ChangeMethodologies #ChangeGovernance #ISO10020 #AssuranceForChange #ChangeOversight #GovernanceMatters #PerformanceMeasurement #AccountabilityInChange #TransparentChange #ChangeMetrics #ResultsDrivenChange
