What are the key differences between ADKAR and Kotter's change theories?

To explain each of the stages: 1) Awareness: This stage involves understanding why change is necessary and what it entails. 2) Desire: This stage involves understanding how the change will benefit each impacted stakeholder. 3) Knowledge: This stage involves individuals acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to implement the change successfully, e.g. through training. 4) Ability: With the knowledge and skills in place, individuals can now effectively implement the change in their day-to-day work. 5) Reinforcement: Finally, reinforcement involves providing ongoing support and incentives to sustain the change over the long term.

ADKAR is a more individual-centric approach whereas Kotter 8 step is a top-down approach. Kotter emphasized the importance of collective action and aligning people with a shared vision.

The ADKAR model is effective in managing large and complex changes. It can access and detect change issues easily. It is sequential but not linear. That means we can run through ADKAR stages of Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement during any phase of the change management. There are tools, e.g., Proxima, that can be used to perform ADKAR.

The Prosci ADKAR? Model is one of the two foundational models of the Prosci Methodology, in addition to the PCT Model. The ADKAR Assessment helps to identify any barrier points to change for individual roles so you can support these individuals in progressing through the change. ADKAR status checks along the way are key to project success. Practitioners use both the Prosci ADKAR Model and the Prosci 3-Phase Process to achieve sustainable change.

To explain each of the stages: 1)Establish a sense of urgency: Creating a compelling reason for change. 2)Form a guiding coalition: Assembling a diverse team of change champions. 3)Create a vision for change: Depicting a desired future state. 4)Communicate the vision: Ensuring the vision is understood and embraced by all stakeholders. 5)Empower others to act on the vision: Empowering people to contribute to the change effort. 6)Generate short-term wins: Celebrating early successes and achieving tangible results. 7)Consolidate gains and produce more change: Building on early successes and leveraging momentum to drive further change. 8)Anchor new approaches in the culture: Sustaining the change and embedding new behaviours.

ADKAR really needs to be taken in context with the broader Prosci Framework which overlaps a lot more with Kotter’s model and goes deeper into the change process.

ADKAR and Kotter's change theories offer distinct approaches to managing change. ADKAR is more individual-centric, focusing on the stages individuals undergo during change and addressing individual readiness and resistance. On the other hand, Kotter's model is broader, focusing on organizational change processes and strategies, including leadership, vision, communication, and cultural transformation. The choice between the two depends on the scope and nature of the change initiative.

AKDAR is really prominent in situations to engage with the people and make then change ready, for instance to work in parallel with Project Management efforts. Here the frameworks helps prepare the org/ppl for the solutions that the PM initiative would be undertaking. Kotter on the other hand is more focused on the change leadership aspect and corporate transformation. While ADKAR focuses on engaging the individuals to deal with change , Kotter’s focuses on guiding and driving organizational or enterprise-wide change.

Según experiencias en los trabajos realizados, ADKAR es más adecuado cuando el enfoque está en el cambio individual y se busca la adopción del cambio por cada persona, lo cual es esencial para implementar el cambio de manera exitosa. Kotter, por otro lado, es útil para un enfoque organizacional más amplio, proporcionando una guía paso a paso para guiar a la organización a través de un cambio significativo y transformar su cultura.

Although Kotter comes across as more sequential that ADKAR, there is still room for customization in the sequence - at times you might want to go back a step or two to ensure the deliverables are in line with the vision and goal. ADKAR is more flexible, but when done well, chances are that you might not view it as iterative and perform each stages sequentially. Given the competency and maturity for the OCM team, there is high possibility that execution of any of the framework from start to finish could look almost identical ; in terms of sequence and flexibility,

Kotter ideally focuses on the driving forces, vision, and processes that fuel large-scale transformation and of late have to emphasizing on change leadership. ADKAR aims to addresses the individual employees' response and reaction to any change undertaking, to ensure they comprehend and build resilience when it becomes necessary.

Again, ADKAR shouldn’t be taken as an approach by itself. Leadership has a large part to play in the Prosci framework. While ADKAR is useful for understanding how individuals process change, this needs to be driven by leadership.

ADKAR begins with the employees, making then change ready and aligning them to the future state. Kotter starts with the management to help build a change plan to reach the desired future state.

Given the different market dynamics and industries with their norms and regulations, there is never going to be a situations where a generic framework would work with high efficiency. The recommended approach is to use a hybrid model , curated by the organization taking into account the variables such as industry, complexity, culture, employee sentiments etc..

There is a lot of debate among change practitioners on the applicability and relevance of the various change models in today's world of work (e.g. ADKAR, Kotter's, Lewin's, Bridges' etc.). Most of these models were created more than 30 years ago and our knowledge about how change should be managed has evolved since then. Change is complex, constant and multifaceted; these models are managing change as a linear initiative with a start and an end. Also, in recent years, change management brings together additional theories and practices, such as behavioural science and systems thinking. In my view, it is important to be aware of the various change management frameworks, but devise a tailored approach to the change itself.