A project is the vehicle that delivers a change. But the benefits in the business case only arrive if people actually adopt that change, and that depends on how ready they and their organisation are. This idea, change readiness, sits at the heart of my MSc capstone research. Here is what I set out to explore, why, how I reached practitioners, and the themes that came out of what they told me.

162 completed responses

80% of those who started finished

6 continents represented

25 survey questions

What I set out to do

I wanted to help practitioners understand the many factors that make up change readiness, and to explore whether they could be brought together under a single, simpler framework. The aim was to make it easier to spot and respond to readiness throughout a project, not just at the start.

Why it was needed

Projects and change are still too often treated as separate worlds. Even the professional bodies disagree on whether change management is a discipline in its own right or part of what project managers should do. Many change models describe the stages of change but say little about readiness.

Readiness is widely researched but poorly joined up. Studies are often tied to one industry and split across neighbouring ideas such as preparedness, acceptance and resistance. Project management itself has a blind spot. A search of three leading project management journals found just four articles that mention “change readiness”, and none says what it means or how to measure it.

Comparing the literature, I found 31 different descriptors for readiness factors. That is far too many for any project to assess. And the people who deliver change across sectors were rarely asked what they think matters most.

How I reached practitioners

I ran an online survey of project and change practitioners, then followed up with interviews and free-text comments to explore the answers in more depth. Getting enough people to complete it took active promotion. The survey ran from 6 to 26 August 2026 and was shared through:

• LinkedIn: posts in project and change community groups, plus direct messages asking people to complete it and share the link. These reached 12,397 members, and 85% of impressions were among people with no connection to me.
• Professional bodies: the forums of APM, PMI and the Association of Change Management Professionals.
• Local chapters: emails to individual chapters of the professional bodies, asking them to encourage their members to take part.

Who took part

I had hoped for at least 125 responses. In the end 162 people completed the survey, and with 203 starting it, the completion rate was 80%. Respondents came from all six inhabited continents, with North America and Europe the strongest. They worked across a wide range of sectors, from IT, government and financial services to health and education. There was a good mix of change practitioners, project practitioners and people who do both, and most were highly experienced.

This was an open call, so I don’t claim it is statistically representative. However, it does give a genuine cross-section of practitioner views.

The themes that emerged

Practitioners want project and change joined up

Most respondents believed project and change management should operate as one integrated approach, rather than as separate disciplines. Few saw change management as just a workstream within a project.

“Change readiness” means different things to different people

Respondents were clear that the term is not widely understood, and that there is not enough clarity on what it means or how it should be measured. Several people questioned whether “readiness” is even the right word, since it suggests something that happens at the start.

It gets talked about more than it gets assessed

Readiness is considered some of the time but formally assessed less often. The biggest were a lack of understanding of the term, limited resources and a feeling that it isn’t needed. A lack of data was a much smaller issue.

Timing and level: early, ongoing and in context

Practitioners favoured assessing readiness early and then returning to it throughout the project, not treating it as a one-off check. They saw it as relevant at several levels, especially at team and organizational level. Both the survey comments and the interviews made the same point: the right approach depends on the scale and context of the change.

People, leadership and organizational context stands out

When asked to prioritise from a long list of possible factors, practitioners’ choices clustered around a small number of broad areas. These related to the people involved in a change, to the leadership and organization around them, and to the wider conditions that help or hinder change. The interviews reinforced this, adding that how an organization’s supports and leads a change can shape the effort from the start.

Readiness is tied to other change ideas

Most practitioners felt readiness influences preparedness, acceptance, resistance and commitment. They saw it more as a driver of those things than a direct measure of them. Interviewees also cautioned against treating a readiness score as a guarantee of success.

How change is managed shapes resistance

A strong theme from the qualitative evidence was that resistance is not only something people bring to a change. It can be created by how the change is managed and delivered. Communication and engagement came up repeatedly, and so did the way popular change models are used. Practitioners saw them as helpful, but they can also limit thinking if followed too rigidly.

This post summarises early themes from my MSc capstone research. The full analysis is being prepared for academic publication.