3.3 The ADKAR Model
Key Takeaways
- ADKAR is a five-step framework for delivering change at the individual level: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement
- Awareness is awareness of the need for the change and the reasons for it
- Knowledge is knowing what to do, while Ability is being able to do it — training builds knowledge, practice and support build ability
- Reinforcement asks whether the change is working and how that is demonstrated
- The steps are sequential, so an individual blocked at an earlier step cannot be helped by interventions aimed at a later one
ADKAR, from Prosci, is the model CM3 uses for structuring the approach at the individual level. It provides a five-step framework to deliver change, and the exam tests both the meaning of each letter and — more often — the ability to match a described activity to the right step.
The five steps
| Letter | Step | The question it answers |
|---|---|---|
| A | Awareness | Awareness of the need for the change; awareness of the reasons for the change |
| D | Desire | A desire to be part of the change — buy-in to the need for change and the clear advantages of achieving it |
| K | Knowledge | The knowledge of what to do. What actions are expected? How will new processes, systems and machinery be used? What other knowledge is required? |
| A | Ability | It is one thing to know what to do and another to have the ability. Are there good opportunities to practise? Are there technical support systems in place? |
| R | Reinforcement | Is it working? How is that demonstrated? |
The sequence matters
ADKAR is sequential. An individual must have each building block before the next one can be established, and this is the source of the model's diagnostic power.
Consider a member of staff who has attended training but is not using the new system. Three quite different explanations are possible:
- They never accepted that the old way had a problem → stuck at Awareness
- They understand the reasons but see no advantage for themselves → stuck at Desire
- They want to use it but cannot remember the steps under pressure → stuck at Ability
Each requires a different intervention, and — the key insight — an intervention aimed at a later step cannot fix an earlier blockage. Sending someone to more training when they are stuck at Desire wastes the training budget and confirms to them that nobody is listening. This is why "we've trained everyone and they still aren't using it" is such a common and such a diagnosable complaint.
Knowledge versus Ability — the distinction the exam loves
This is the single most tested aspect of ADKAR, so be precise.
Knowledge is knowing what to do. It is built by training courses, documentation, demonstrations, process guides and briefings. After a good training session, a person has knowledge.
Ability is being able to actually do it, in real conditions, at real speed, with real consequences. It is built by opportunities to practise and by technical support systems being in place. Drop-in support sessions, floor-walkers in the first weeks, sandbox environments, buddy arrangements and time to practise all build ability.
The test: if the activity transfers information, it is Knowledge. If the activity supports doing the thing for real, it is Ability. Arranging technical support drop-ins over the weeks following go-live is an Ability activity; running the training that precedes it is a Knowledge activity.
Matching interventions to steps
| Step | Typical interventions |
|---|---|
| Awareness | Communicating the business case and the reasons; explaining why the current position is not sustainable; leadership messages about context |
| Desire | Addressing "what's in it for me"; involving people through co-design; surfacing and answering objections; addressing dis-benefits honestly; sponsor advocacy |
| Knowledge | Training, e-learning, process documentation, demonstrations, briefings |
| Ability | Practice environments, drop-in technical support, coaching, floor-walkers, phased workload, super-users |
| Reinforcement | Measurement and feedback, celebrating early wins, recognising adopters, embedding the change into performance management and systems |
Reinforcement is where changes die
Reinforcement asks two blunt questions: is it working, and how is that demonstrated? It is the step organisations cut when budgets tighten, because by then the visible delivery is complete.
The consequence connects directly to Kelman. Without reinforcement, adoption that was only ever at the compliance level reverts as soon as attention moves elsewhere. Reinforcement is also where change analytics earns its place — "how is that demonstrated" is a measurement question, and answering it requires the scorecard and evaluation methods covered in the Work of the change manager area.
Using ADKAR as a diagnostic
The most valuable practical use is not as a delivery sequence but as a diagnostic per stakeholder group. Assess each affected group against the five steps, identify the earliest step where they are weak, and concentrate effort there. Different groups will typically be blocked at different points — the operations team stuck at Ability while their managers are stuck at Desire — and a single uniform intervention will therefore serve neither.
A hospital opens a practice environment where ward clerks can rehearse the new admissions workflow with a super-user on hand for the first month after go-live. Which ADKAR step does this most directly build?
Staff have completed training and can describe the new process accurately, but under normal workload they revert to the old method because they cannot complete the new one quickly enough. Which ADKAR step is the blockage?
Which question does the Reinforcement step of ADKAR ask?