The Change Gap Model

The Change Gap Model distinguishes four outcome positions to show how the possibilities available to a change become progressively constrained and what is ultimately realized.

In plain terms

The Change Gap Model is a way of reasoning about what a change could have achieved and what it actually did. It treats a change as a sequence of constraints. Deciding what to pursue narrows what remains possible. Deciding how to pursue it narrows it again. Execution then delivers something within whatever is left. The model gives names to what may be lost at each step, so that a disappointing result can be discussed more precisely than "it went badly".

How it works

When a change need is taken up, many different responses are possible, and they would lead to different results. Some of those results would be better than others, though nobody can know the full range or judge it perfectly.

The model tracks four positions. The change potential is the best that could reasonably have been achieved in response to the need. The intent potential is the best still reachable once intent has been established. The direction potential is the best still reachable once a direction has been chosen. The realized outcome position is what actually happened.

Each constrains the next. Intent potential cannot exceed change potential, and direction potential cannot exceed intent potential. Execution works within what the direction left available. Note that these are limits rather than certainties: a well-founded intent could in principle preserve everything that was available, leaving no intent gap at all.

The distances between them are the gaps. The intent gap is what was lost in establishing intent. The direction gap is what was lost in choosing a direction. The execution gap is what execution left unrealized of what was available. Together they span the change gap.

None of the potential positions can be observed. They are counterfactual: what could reasonably have been achieved, not what anyone predicted or aimed at. This is a genuine limitation and it is worth being direct about it. The model does not let you calculate how much was lost. What it does is separate four different questions that are otherwise discussed as one, so that a poor result can be examined for where it actually went wrong rather than attributed to whichever stage is easiest to see.

That matters because the stage that is easiest to see is execution, which is not necessarily where the potential was lost. A change that pursued the wrong outcomes, or chose an approach that was never going to produce them, will look like an execution problem from the inside, because execution is where the visible difficulty appears.

The asymmetry is the point. Potential lost upstream cannot be recovered downstream unless the reasoning that lost it is reconsidered. Executing well realizes what the direction made available. It cannot reach past it.

Where it sits

The change gap decomposes into three parts that need different responses. The intent gap is the potential lost in establishing intent. The direction gap is the potential lost in choosing a direction. The execution gap is the potential left unrealized through execution. Potential lost upstream cannot be recovered downstream unless the reasoning that constrained it is reconsidered.

Related

• The change gap spans the Intent gap, the direction gap and the execution gap.
• Each gap corresponds to one of the three fundamental elements: Intent, direction and execution.
• The potential positions cannot be observed. Outcome references are the evidence used to reason about them in practice.
• The model describes where potential may be lost or left unrealized across Intent, direction and execution. Maintaining intent integrity strengthens the reasoning that helps preserve potential and recognise when earlier choices should be reconsidered. Part of the execution gap can arise simply from realizing a direction poorly, which is not itself a matter of intent integrity.

Referenced by

• Intent Integrity
• Intent gap
• Direction gap
• Execution gap
• Outcome references