One of the most overlooked dimensions of change management readiness is the organisation's capacity to take ownership of and sustain the change after the project team has disbanded. A change that is successfully adopted at go-live but not sustainably embedded within the organisation's operating model will progressively deteriorate, with employees reverting to former behaviours and systems falling into disuse. Assessing readiness for sustainability is therefore a critical component of change management planning.
Definition and Distinction
Organisational readiness to sustain the change refers to the degree to which the business-as-usual functions and leadership structures that will remain after project close are capable of maintaining, reinforcing, and governing the new ways of working. This is distinct from project readiness (the project team's preparedness to go live), individual capability (the ability of individual employees to operate in the new way), and technical sustainability (the IT or operations function's ability to maintain the solution).
Sustainable change requires:
governance mechanisms to monitor and reinforce adoption;
performance management frameworks aligned to new ways of working;
leadership capability to model and coach the new behaviours;
and operating procedures and job aids that embed the change into daily workflows.
Why Sustainability Readiness Matters
Research on change sustainability consistently identifies the period immediately after project close as the highest-risk phase of the change journey. Without deliberate reinforcement, adoption levels achieved at go-live typically erode over time, particularly when employees face competing priorities or when the new way of working presents ongoing challenges (Kotter, 1996). The change management plan should include explicit provisions for embedding and reinforcement that extend beyond the project's formal closure date.
Sustainability readiness also has implications for benefits realisation. Benefits that are contingent on sustained behavioural change—such as productivity improvements, quality gains, or cost reductions—will not be realised if adoption erodes post-project. The project sponsor and business leaders must understand their ongoing role in sustaining the change.
Assessing Sustainability Readiness
Change managers should assess sustainability readiness by examining:
whether business-as-usual governance mechanisms (performance reviews, team meetings, reporting frameworks) have been updated to incorporate the new ways of working;
whether line managers understand their role in reinforcing change after project close;
whether operational documentation (standard operating procedures, job aids, system user guides) is up to date and accessible;
whether the organisation has identified a business owner who will be responsible for ongoing adoption monitoring.
Example of a well-documented sustainability assessment:
'Line managers have been trained in coaching employees through the new process. Performance KPIs have been updated to include adoption metrics. Standard operating procedures have been revised and published on the intranet. A Business Change Owner has been appointed within the Finance function to monitor adoption for six months post-go-live and escalate issues to the Executive Sponsor. A 90-day post-go-live review is scheduled.'
Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Treating go-live as the end of the change management role: Effective change management extends beyond go-live into the reinforcement and sustainability phase. Plan explicitly for post-go-live activities before the project closes.
Not identifying a business owner for post-project change stewardship: Once the project team disbands, someone in the business must be accountable for adoption. If this role is not formally identified and briefed, adoption monitoring will not occur.
Failing to align performance management with the new ways of working: If performance review criteria do not reflect the new behaviours expected, employees receive conflicting signals about what matters. Work with HR to update performance frameworks before go-live.
Not providing ongoing access to support resources: Employees who encounter difficulties after go-live need access to support. Ensure that help desk, job aids, and peer support resources remain accessible after the project team has disbanded.
References
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press. https://hbr.org/books/kotter
Prosci. (2023). Reinforcing Change and Sustaining Adoption. https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/change-reinforcement
Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change. Prosci. https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/adkar-model