Extending the team structure to include local groups is not simply a resourcing decision; it is a diagnostic change-management intervention. Its purpose is to test whether the current project and change team can understand, influence, and support the people who must adopt the change. Readiness is not only awareness of a decision; it includes shared commitment to implement the change and shared confidence that the group can do so [Weiner, 2009; Shea et al., 2014]. Because readiness can differ by team, site, role, or function, a central view may miss local risks, workarounds, informal resistance, or practical constraints [Weiner, 2009].

This action assesses whether the formal change structure should be extended through local groups such as change champions, change agents, super users, manager forums, site leads, or working groups. Use it when the change affects multiple locations, job families, shifts, customer-facing teams, or operational processes; when feedback is slow or filtered; when resistance is uneven; or when the central team lacks credibility with impacted employees. Change agent networks are commonly used to extend reach, increase peer-to-peer engagement, and create feedback loops between impacted groups and the change team [Prosci, 2025; NHS England Digital, 2026].

Do not create a local network automatically. Broad involvement can help in transformational or high-impact change, but unnecessary involvement can increase complexity, slow decisions, or raise expectations the project cannot meet [Gallup, 2020]. The diagnostic question is: “What local involvement is necessary for adoption, risk reduction, and sustained use?”

Before facilitating the assessment, gather the change impact assessment, stakeholder map, adoption goals, training approach, implementation timeline, known risks, support data, employee feedback, and any readiness pulse results. Readiness questions should distinguish commitment, capability, task demands, resource availability, and situational barriers [Weiner, 2009; Shea et al., 2014].

Involve the sponsor, project manager, change manager, impacted people managers, HR or L&D partners, operational leads, communications/training leads, and representatives from high-impact groups. Prepare a heat map by audience, a decision matrix, a draft role description, and options ranging from “no extension” to “temporary working group” to “formal champion network.” The key decision is not only who to involve, but what authority, time allocation, escalation route, and feedback cadence they will have [Prosci, 2025; PMI, 2015].

Adapt the facilitation by audience and phase. Executives need a concise risk and resourcing decision. Managers need role clarity and time expectations. Frontline groups need psychological safety and visible follow-through. In early design, use local groups to test assumptions; during deployment, use them to solve blockers; during sustainment, use them to reinforce new behaviors and spot regression [Gallup, 2020; NHS England Digital, 2026].

A company is rolling out a new field service scheduling platform. The central team has a project manager, change manager, trainer, and communications lead. Early readiness data shows office-based planners understand the change, but technicians in two regions expect slower job closeout and reduced autonomy. Local supervisors are supportive but overloaded.

The change manager facilitates a diagnostic session and scores the technician groups as high impact, medium readiness, and high workflow complexity. The team extends the structure by adding one technician champion per region, one planner super user, and a weekly field issue huddle for the first eight weeks after go-live. Champions test job scenarios, identify language that makes sense locally, flag impractical steps, and help supervisors reinforce the new process. This turns local resistance into actionable design and adoption input.

Use leading and lagging indicators. Leading indicators include coverage of high-impact groups, champion attendance, number of local issues raised and resolved, manager confidence, readiness movement, training preparedness, and time to escalate blockers. Lagging indicators include adoption by site or role, proficiency, process compliance, reduction in workarounds, support-ticket trends, productivity recovery, customer or quality outcomes, and sustained use after go-live. Measurement should connect stakeholder feedback to adoption planning, resources, and risk responses [PMI, 2015; Weiner, 2009].

Suggested opening script: “We are assessing whether our current change structure is sufficient for adoption. The goal is not to add governance for its own sake. The goal is to identify where local insight, credibility, and support are needed so impacted teams can adopt the change safely, consistently, and sustainably.”