Concepts

Intent is what the change is trying to achieve and why.

• Intent is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside direction and execution.
• Intent responds to a change need.
• Intent establishes the intended outcomes, which are the reference point for choosing a direction.
• Establishing intent is where an intent gap may arise.
• Intent quality is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap.
• The Intent function places this work within the Intent Loop.

Direction is the chosen way of pursuing the established intent.

• Direction is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and execution.
• Direction establishes a target state and an approach for reaching it.
• Direction is chosen in pursuit of the established intent, which provides the reference point for judging it.
• Execution realizes the chosen direction in practice.
• Choosing a direction is where a direction gap may arise.
• Direction quality is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap.
• The paper's Direction function places this work within the Intent Loop.

Execution is the process of realizing the chosen direction in practice.

• Execution is one of the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change, alongside intent and direction.
• Execution realizes the chosen direction and produces the realized state.
• The realized state produces the realized outcomes.
• Execution is where an execution gap may arise, against what the chosen direction had made available.
• Intent tracing is the practice that maintains continuity during execution. Silent drift is what happens when it is absent.
• The Execution function places this work within the Intent Loop.

Intent integrity is the quality and continuity of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction, and execution as a change unfolds.

• Intent integrity is a property of the reasoning that shapes and connects intent, direction and execution, the three fundamental elements of deliberate organizational change.
• It has two components: quality and continuity.
• The Intent Loop is the structure through which intent integrity is maintained.
• The Change Gap Model describes where potential may be lost or left unrealized across the three elements. Maintaining intent integrity strengthens the reasoning that helps preserve it, without guaranteeing that it is preserved.

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.

• 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.

The Intent Loop provides a structure for maintaining intent integrity through five functions: Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution.

• The Intent Loop is the structure through which intent integrity is maintained.
• Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation and Evolution.
• The first three correspond to the three fundamental elements of change: intent, direction and execution.
• Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation and capability evolution.
• Evolution acts on change capability rather than on the current change.

At any point, an organization exists in a particular organizational state: how some relevant part of it is structured or operates at that time.

• An organizational state operates within its context and produces outcomes.
• The current state is where a change starts. Direction establishes a target state. Execution produces the realized state.
• A change need arises when the current state's outcomes are inadequate, threatened, or improvable.

An outcome is a condition or effect resulting from how that state operates within its context, in relation to something that matters to the organization or its stakeholders.

• An organizational state, operating within its context, produces outcomes.
• Intent establishes the intended outcomes a change is pursuing.
• Execution produces the realized state, which produces the realized outcomes.
• Outcome references are the observable evidence used to reason about outcomes in practice: a baseline, targets, and results.
• Outcome validation is the practice of checking what outcomes are actually being produced and what they imply.

A change need is a problem, opportunity, constraint, or other condition that provides a reason to consider change.

• A change need is the reason intent is established. It is where deliberate organizational change begins.
• It arises from the outcomes the current state is producing, or failing to produce.
• Change potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable in response to the change need.
• Intent quality concerns, among other things, how well the change need is understood.
• Evidence emerging during direction, execution or validation can change how the change need is understood, which can require intent and the reasoning downstream to be reconsidered.

The intent gap is the potential lost in establishing the intent.

• The intent gap corresponds to intent, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It sits between change potential and intent potential in the Change Gap Model.
• It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the direction gap and the execution gap.
• Intent quality is the practice that reduces the expected intent gap.

The direction gap is the potential lost in choosing a direction.

• The direction gap corresponds to direction, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It sits between intent potential and direction potential in the Change Gap Model.
• It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the execution gap.
• Direction quality is the practice that reduces the expected direction gap.
• Outcome targets are the practical reference point for reasoning about direction potential.

The execution gap is the potential left unrealized through execution that was available through the chosen direction.

• The execution gap corresponds to execution, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It sits between direction potential and the realized outcome position in the Change Gap Model.
• It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the direction gap.
• Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity. It does not address the rest of the gap.
• Silent drift is the characteristic form of lost continuity during execution.
• Comparing outcome targets with outcome results gives an indication of this gap, and requires interpretation.

The change gap is the potential lost or left unrealized between change potential and the realized outcome position.

• Change gap relates to Intent gap.
• Change gap relates to Direction gap.
• Change gap relates to Execution gap.

To connect the model with expectations and evidence in practice, organizations can use outcome references: an outcome baseline for current outcomes, outcome targets for the outcomes expected if the chosen direction is realized, and outcome results for realized outcomes.

• Outcome references connect the Change Gap Model to observable evidence.
• The outcome baseline is evidence about the current state. Outcome targets are the practical reference for direction potential. Outcome results approximate the realized outcome position.
• Comparing targets with results indicates the execution gap, and requires interpretation rather than arithmetic.
• Outcome validation is the practice that uses this evidence and works out what it implies.

Delivery success and outcome success are two different things: a change can be delivered successfully while the outcomes that justified it are not achieved.

• Intent integrity explains why delivery success and outcome success can diverge.

Intent quality concerns how well the change need is understood, how relevant and valuable outcomes are identified, whether affected interests and relevant perspectives are adequately considered, and how priorities, trade-offs, constraints, assumptions, and uncertainty are handled when establishing intent.

• Intent quality is the practice for the Intent function of the Intent Loop.
• It addresses weak intent and reduces the expected intent gap.
• It concerns the reasoning that establishes intent and its intended outcomes, starting from the change need.
• It draws on decision quality, as does direction quality.

Direction quality concerns the alternatives, evidence, assumptions, expected causal relationships, uncertainties, and trade-offs considered when choosing the target state and approach through which to pursue the established intent.

• Direction quality is the practice for the Direction function of the Intent Loop.
• It addresses weak direction and reduces the expected direction gap.
• It concerns the reasoning that chooses a target state and an approach in pursuit of the established intent.
• It draws on decision quality, as does intent quality.

Intent tracing is the practice of maintaining continuity between the reasoning behind intent and direction and the course of execution, so that significant divergence and emerging evidence can be understood in relation to that reasoning and earlier reasoning can be reconsidered when needed.

• Intent tracing is the practice for the Execution function of the Intent Loop.
• It addresses lost reasoning continuity and reduces the expected execution gap arising from that cause, not the whole of it.
• Silent drift is the characteristic failure it exists to catch.
• It maintains continuity, one of the two components of intent integrity.

One form of lost continuity is silent drift: the course of execution gradually diverges from the chosen direction without the significance of that divergence being recognized.

• Silent drift is one form of lost reasoning continuity, the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function of the Intent Loop.
• It contributes to the execution gap.
• Intent tracing is the practice that addresses it.
• It is a failure of continuity rather than of quality: the reasoning may have been sound and simply stopped being connected to the work.

Outcome validation uses available evidence about emerging and realized outcomes to assess what outcomes are being realized, how they compare with expectations, and what they imply for the reasoning behind the change.

• Outcome validation is the practice for the Validation function of the Intent Loop.
• It uses outcome references, comparing outcome results with outcome targets.
• Its findings can send reasoning back to execution, direction or intent.
• It provides the evidence that capability evolution works from.

Change capability is the capacity of an organization to undertake deliberate change.

• Change capability is what capability evolution acts on.
• The Evolution function of the Intent Loop is where capability is strengthened.

Capability evolution uses what is learned through change to adapt, renew, and strengthen this capability for future change.

• Capability evolution is the practice for the Evolution function of the Intent Loop.
• It acts on change capability, and addresses stagnation or erosion.
• It works from what the change revealed, including the evidence produced by outcome validation.

Establish what outcomes to pursue and why.

• Intent is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to intent, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It responds to a change need and establishes the intended outcomes.
• It precedes the Direction function.
• Its characteristic vulnerability is weak intent, which increases the risk of an intent gap.
• Intent quality is the practice for this function.

Choose what to change and the approach for changing it in pursuit of the established intent.

• Direction is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to direction, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It follows the Intent function and precedes the Execution function.
• It establishes a target state and an approach.
• Its characteristic vulnerability is weak direction, which increases the risk of a direction gap.
• Direction quality is the practice for this function.

Realize the chosen direction in practice while keeping the course of execution connected to the reasoning behind the change.

• Execution is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop, and corresponds to execution, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It follows the Direction function and precedes the Validation function.
• Its characteristic vulnerability is lost reasoning continuity, of which silent drift is one form.
• Intent tracing is the practice for this function. It reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity.

Establish evidence about emerging and realized outcomes, compare it with expectations, and assess what it implies for the reasoning behind the change.

• Validation is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop. It has no corresponding fundamental element of change.
• It follows the Execution function and feeds the Evolution function.
• It uses outcome references, principally outcome results compared against outcome targets.
• Outcome validation is the practice for this function.

Use experience from change to adapt, renew, and strengthen the capability through which future change is undertaken.

• Evolution is one of the five functions of the Intent Loop. It has no corresponding fundamental element of change.
• It follows the Validation function, and acts on change capability rather than returning to an earlier function of the current change.
• Capability evolution is the practice for this function.

The current state is the relevant organizational state at the point a change is taken up for deliberate consideration.

• Current state is part of Organizational state.

An organizational state operates within a context: the relevant conditions outside the organizational state under consideration that influence how that state operates and what outcomes it produces.

• Context is part of Organizational state.

Deliberate organizational change is a purposeful effort to alter organizational state in response to a change need, in pursuit of outcomes considered valuable.

• Deliberate organizational change relates to Intent.
• Deliberate organizational change relates to Direction.
• Deliberate organizational change relates to Execution.
• Deliberate organizational change relates to Change need.

Intent is what the change is trying to achieve and why. It is established by understanding the change need, determining which outcomes should be pursued in response, why those outcomes are valuable, whose interests they affect, how competing outcomes should be prioritized or traded off, and what constraints must be respected. These outcomes become the intended outcomes of the change and provide the reference point for choosing a direction and keeping execution connected to what the change is trying to achieve.

• Intended outcomes is part of Intent.

Direction is the chosen way of pursuing the established intent. It establishes the target state the organization aims to create and the approach by which it proposes to move from the current state toward that target state.

• Target state is part of Direction.

Direction is the chosen way of pursuing the established intent. It establishes the target state the organization aims to create and the approach by which it proposes to move from the current state toward that target state.

• Approach is part of Direction.

Execution is the process of realizing the chosen direction in practice. It produces the realized state, the organizational state that results from execution.

• Realized state is part of Execution.

The realized state produces the realized outcomes and may differ from the target state.

• Realized outcomes relates to Realized state.

In this context, reasoning is the process through which judgments and choices are formed, connected, and reconsidered by assessing the reasons relevant to them.

• Reasoning relates to Intent.
• Reasoning relates to Direction.
• Reasoning relates to Execution.

Quality concerns whether the reasoning is well founded. High-quality reasoning uses relevant and reliable information, makes assumptions defensible, considers expected cause-and-effect relationships, values, constraints, and trade-offs, accounts for uncertainty, and reaches judgments and choices that are well supported by the reasons considered.

• Quality is part of Intent Integrity.

Continuity concerns whether reasoning remains sufficiently available and connected as the change progresses, so that later judgments and choices can be understood and evaluated in relation to the reasoning that preceded them, and earlier reasoning can be reconsidered when needed.

• Continuity is part of Intent Integrity.

An outcome position represents the overall combination of relevant outcomes, considered in light of the values, interests, constraints, and trade-offs through which they should be judged.

• Outcome position relates to Outcome.

Potential represents a conceptual limit: the strongest outcome position that remains reasonably achievable within the possibilities still open to the change.

• Potential relates to Outcome position.

The change potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable in response to the change need.

• Change potential relates to Intent potential.

The intent potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the established intent.

• Intent potential relates to Direction potential.

The direction potential is the strongest outcome position reasonably achievable within the chosen direction.

• Direction potential relates to Realized outcome position.

The realized outcome position is the outcome position actually produced by the realized state that results from execution of the chosen direction.

• Realized outcome position relates to Realized state.

The outcome baseline provides evidence about the current outcomes produced by the current state, before execution begins to alter that state.

• Outcome baseline relates to Current state.

Outcome targets express the expected levels of intended outcomes if the chosen direction is realized.

• Outcome targets relates to Direction potential.

Outcome results provide evidence about the realized outcomes and, when they adequately capture the relevant outcomes, provide a practical approximation of the realized outcome position.

• Outcome results relates to Realized outcome position.

Intent quality and direction quality draw on decision quality as a foundation for well-founded reasoning. They apply its principles to two distinct choices within organizational change: intent quality concerns what outcomes should be pursued and why, while direction quality concerns how the established intent should be pursued. Decision quality informs both, including attention to an appropriate frame, creative and doable alternatives, relevant and reliable information, clear values and trade-offs, sound reasoning, and commitment to action.

• Decision quality informs Intent quality.
• Decision quality informs Direction quality.