Ask most organizations how ready they are for a transformation and you’ll get a single number back \u2014 a readiness score, an engagement percentage, a color on a dashboard. The number feels precise. It’s usually hiding more than it reveals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A blended score can’t tell you whether a team is unready because they don’t understand the plan, don’t believe in it, don’t have the skills for it, don’t have the time for it, or because their own leadership can’t agree on what it actually is. Those are five completely different problems. Averaging them into one figure doesn’t make the picture clearer \u2014 it makes the wrong fix equally likely as the right one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That’s the reasoning behind scoring readiness across five separate dimensions instead of one. We call it the 5C model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Do people understand why<\/em> this change is happening \u2014 not the slide-deck version, the version they’d repeat to a colleague in their own words. Low clarity usually isn’t a knowledge problem; it’s a communication design problem, and it’s the cheapest of the five to fix once it’s actually identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do they believe it’s the right call \u2014 for the organization, and specifically for them. A team can score high on clarity and low on conviction: they understand exactly what’s changing and disagree with it anyway. That’s a very different intervention than a team that’s simply confused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do they have the actual skills the change requires. This is the dimension most often assumed rather than checked \u2014 a rollout plan says “training will be provided,” which is a plan for capability, not a measurement of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do they have the time and headcount to take this on, on top of what they’re already doing. High conviction and high capability don’t matter much if a team is already at 110% and the transformation is one more thing with no corresponding subtraction.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConviction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Capability<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Capacity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cohesion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n