Assessing individual ABSUP scores is a diagnostic change-management intervention. Its purpose is to understand where each impacted person, role, or stakeholder group currently stands in relation to the change, so the change plan can target real adoption barriers rather than rely on generic communication or training.

This matters because organizational change is ultimately delivered through individual behavior. Prosci’s ADKAR model is built on the premise that organizational change requires individual change, and it identifies individual outcomes such as awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement [Prosci, n.d.]. (prosci.com) Readiness research similarly shows that people’s commitment to the change and confidence in their ability to implement it are central to effective implementation [Weiner, 2009]. (link.springer.com)

For this article, ABSUP means Awareness, Buy-in, Skill, Use, and Proficiency. The score is not the goal. The goal is to identify adoption risk early enough to respond.

Assessing the state of individual ABSUP scores means collecting and interpreting evidence about where each person sits across the five adoption dimensions. It is best used before a major milestone, during pilots, before go-live, shortly after go-live, and whenever adoption data shows uneven uptake.

This action belongs in the category of diagnostic assessment and planning. PMI describes change readiness as a measure of confidence supported by defensible data and information, and notes that readiness assessment helps inform whether to proceed, how to address risks, and what resources are needed [PMI, 2014]. (pmi.org) At the individual level, the ABSUP assessment turns those broad readiness questions into specific adoption findings: Who understands the change? Who supports it? Who can perform the new work? Who is actually using it? Who is proficient enough to sustain benefits?

Use it with sponsors when leadership alignment is uncertain, with managers when teams are unevenly prepared, with frontline groups when workflow impacts are significant, and with project teams when adoption risks need to be converted into actions.

Start with a clear definition of each ABSUP dimension and a simple scoring scale, such as 1–5 or red/amber/green. Define what evidence is acceptable for each score. Awareness may come from survey responses or manager check-ins; Skill may come from training practice, simulation, or observation; Use may come from system or process data; Proficiency may come from quality, cycle time, error, or coaching data.

Inputs should include the change impact assessment, role mapping, training completion, usage analytics, help desk themes, manager observations, employee feedback, and business performance indicators. PMI recommends combining perception-based confidence assessment with objective data such as lessons learned, risk registers, and historical evidence [PMI, 2014]. (pmi.org)

Stakeholders should include the change manager, impacted managers, sponsor, HR or people partner where appropriate, project lead, process owner, and representative employees. CIPD emphasizes that effective employee voice depends on complementary channels and that managers must listen and act on feedback [CIPD, 2026]. (cipd.org)

Before collecting data, decide who will see individual-level results, how privacy will be protected, what thresholds trigger action, and which decisions the findings will inform.

A sales organization is rolling out a new CRM workflow. Two weeks before go-live, the change manager assesses ABSUP scores for account executives and sales coordinators. The results show high Awareness but weak Skill and Use confidence among coordinators. Interviews reveal that training covered the system screens but not the handoff between sales and billing.

The change manager runs a 45-minute role-based simulation, adds a job aid, and asks two respected coordinators to test the revised workflow. After a one-week PDSA cycle, usage confidence improves, but Proficiency remains uneven because exception handling is unclear. The project team updates the workflow and delays one optional feature. The sponsor receives an aggregated risk view, while managers receive coaching prompts for their own teams.

Gallup’s research emphasizes that manager conversations are the “last mile” of change communication because managers help each team member answer what the change means for them [Gallup, 2024]. (gallup.com)

A common mistake is treating ABSUP as a reporting dashboard rather than a diagnostic conversation. Scores should lead to barrier removal, not labeling.

Another mistake is averaging scores too early. A team average can hide a critical subgroup with low Use or Proficiency.

A third mistake is assuming low Buy-in is attitude-based. Resistance may reflect workload, unclear benefits, conflicting incentives, lack of manager support, or a valid design flaw.

Finally, avoid collecting feedback without visible follow-up. CIPD stresses that genuine two-way communication requires managers to listen and act on feedback [CIPD, 2026]. (cipd.org)

The assessment is working if it produces better decisions and visible adoption improvement. Track whether priority gaps are closed, whether interventions are completed, whether managers hold follow-up conversations, and whether adoption indicators improve.

Prosci recommends measuring change outcomes through speed of adoption, ultimate utilization, and proficiency [Prosci, n.d.]. (prosci.com) For ABSUP, practical indicators include improved scores by dimension, reduced “unknown” scores, increased correct usage, fewer workarounds, faster time to competence, lower error or rework rates, fewer repeated support tickets, and stronger manager confidence.

Suggested manager script: “I’m not checking whether you are ‘for’ or ‘against’ the change. I’m trying to understand what would help you use it successfully. Which part is clearest, which part is hardest, and what support would make the biggest difference this week?”

Prosci. “The Prosci ADKAR® Model.” n.d. https://www.prosci.com/methodology/adkar

Project Management Institute. “Change Readiness: Focusing Change Management Where It Counts.” July 2014. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/change-readiness-11126

Weiner, Bryan J. “A theory of organizational readiness for change.” Implementation Science, 19 October 2009. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67

CIPD. “Employee voice.” 6 April 2026. https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/factsheets/voice-factsheet/

Gallup. “Disruptive Change Is Hitting Leaders and Managers Hardest.” 23 May 2024. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645152/disruptive-change-hitting-leaders-managers-hardest.aspx

Prosci. “Change Management Success.” n.d. https://www.prosci.com/change-management-success

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. “Model for Improvement: Testing Changes.” n.d. https://www.ihi.org/library/model-for-improvement/testing-changes