Katie Robbert

Category: 5P Framework

  • What ADKAR Gets Right — and the One Thing It Misses

    It’s one of the most popular change management models for a reason. But popularity doesn’t mean it’s complete.

    If you’ve ever been part of a change management initiative — and if you’re reading this, you probably have — there’s a good chance someone pulled out the ADKAR model. Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement. It’s been the go-to framework in corporate change management for years, and I get why.

    I’ve used ADKAR. I’ve recommended ADKAR. And I think it does something genuinely important that a lot of other models skip over entirely: it addresses willingness. The “Desire” step forces you to acknowledge that people don’t just need to understand the change — they need to actually want to participate in it. That’s not a small thing. Most models assume that if you explain the change clearly enough, people will just get on board. Anyone who has ever managed a team knows that’s not how humans work.

    ADKAR also gives you a diagnostic. If someone isn’t adopting the change, you can pinpoint exactly where they’re stuck — is it Awareness? Desire? Knowledge? — and address that specific barrier. That’s practical. That’s useful. I’m not here to trash it.

    So What’s Missing?

    Here’s the thing. ADKAR starts with Awareness. That means it assumes someone has already figured out what the change is and why it matters. But in practice? That step gets skipped more often than you’d think.

    Teams jump into building awareness for a change initiative that was never clearly defined in measurable terms. They can tell you they’re “adopting AI” or “improving customer experience,” but they can’t tell you what specific, measurable question the project is trying to answer. “We’re rolling out a new CRM” is not a purpose. “What is the impact of our CRM migration on sales cycle length?” — that’s a purpose.

    And it doesn’t just have a gap at the beginning. It has one at the end, too.

    Reinforcement — the final step — is about making the change stick. It’s about sustaining adoption. That’s valuable. But it’s not the same thing as measuring whether the change actually produced the outcome you set out to achieve. You can reinforce a change that didn’t work. You can sustain adoption of a tool that isn’t solving the problem it was supposed to solve. Reinforcement asks “did people stick with it?” It doesn’t ask “did it actually work?”

    That’s two missing bookends: no measurable purpose at the start, and no performance measurement at the end.

    How the 5P Framework Fills This Gap

    This is where I’m biased, and I’m not even humble about it. The 5P Framework by Trust Insights — which I built — bookends the entire process with Purpose and Performance. Purpose forces you to state a measurable question before you do anything else. Performance forces you to go back and answer it. Everything in between — People, Process, Platform — serves the Purpose and gets validated by Performance.

    So here’s what I actually recommend: you don’t have to abandon ADKAR to use the 5P Framework. Use them together. ADKAR is excellent for the People layer — it gives you a diagnostic for individual adoption that the 5P Framework doesn’t try to replicate at that level of detail. But wrap it in 5P so that the work you’re doing has a defined starting point and a measurable finish line.

    Start with Purpose: what measurable question are we trying to answer with this change? Then use ADKAR to get your People through the adoption curve. Document your Process. Select your Platform. And close with Performance: did we answer the question we started with?

    Because if you can’t answer “did this actually work?” at the end, the framework didn’t fail. The project just never had a way to succeed.

    The Moral of the Story

    ADKAR is a good model. It earned its place. But it was designed to manage individual adoption, not to structure an entire change initiative from purpose to proof. If you’re using it as your only framework, you’re missing the two questions that matter most: “What are we actually trying to achieve?” and “Did we achieve it?”

    The 5P Framework gives you both. And if you want to see how ADKAR stacks up against Kotter, Lewin, McKinsey 7-S, and Bridges in a side-by-side comparison, I wrote the whole thing out: The 5P Framework vs. Other Change Management Models.

    Want to see where your organization stands? Start with the 5P Framework for Change Management — it’ll walk you through exactly where to begin.

  • The 5P Framework vs. Other Change Management Models

    This article was originally published on the Trust Insights blog. It is republished here for the katierobbert.com audience.

    There is no shortage of change management models. A quick search returns dozens of them, each with its own acronym, diagram, and book deal. The most popular ones — ADKAR, Kotter’s 8 Steps, Lewin’s Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze — have been taught in business schools and deployed in enterprises for decades. They’re well-researched, widely adopted, and genuinely useful.

    So why did we build the 5P Framework?

    Not because those models are wrong. They aren’t. But in our experience working with organizations navigating digital transformation and AI adoption, we kept running into the same pattern: teams would pick a framework, follow it faithfully, and still end up with a project that had no measurable purpose and no way to tell if it worked.

    The problem wasn’t the change management — it was what was missing from it. Most frameworks assume you’ve already defined the “why” before you start. They assume someone has already figured out what success looks like. In practice, that almost never happens. People jump straight to the tool, the process, or the coalition — and the question they were trying to answer gets lost.

    The 5P Framework was built to fix that gap. It’s not a replacement for every other model. It’s a forcing function that ensures two things happen that usually don’t: you define a measurable purpose before you start, and you measure performance against that purpose when you’re done.

    The core idea: The 5P Framework bookends the traditional “People, Process, Technology” approach with Purpose at the beginning and Performance at the end. It’s a simple structural change that eliminates the two most common reasons projects fail — unclear goals and unmeasured outcomes.

    The Five Models We Hear About Most

    Before we compare, let’s give each model a fair overview. These are the frameworks our clients and audiences reference most often. Each one has earned its place for good reasons.

    ADKAR

    Prosci • Jeff Hiatt • Individual change focus

    Awareness • Desire • Knowledge • Ability • Reinforcement

    Strengths

    • Individual-level focus makes it practical and personal

    • Prescriptive — tells you exactly what outcomes to target

    • Easy to diagnose where someone is stuck in the change process

    • Strong supporting methodology (Prosci 3-Phase Process)

    Where It Stops Short

    • Doesn’t define the project’s measurable purpose up front

    • Not designed for strategic-level or enterprise-wide planning

    • Assumes the “what” of the change has already been decided

    • No built-in performance measurement against original goals

    Kotter’s 8-Step Model

    Dr. John Kotter • 1996 • Leadership-driven change

    Create Urgency • Build Coalition • Form Vision • Enlist Army • Remove Barriers • Short-Term Wins • Sustain Acceleration • Institute Change

    Strengths

    • Clear, sequential roadmap for leaders

    • Strong emphasis on building organizational buy-in

    • Addresses both motivation and sustainability

    • Well-suited for large, visible transformation efforts

    Where It Stops Short

    • Top-down — assumes leadership drives all change

    • Linear process; real change is often iterative and messy

    • High-level roadmap without detailed execution guidance

    • No explicit mechanism for measuring outcomes against initial goals

    Lewin’s Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze

    Kurt Lewin • 1940s • Foundational change theory

    Unfreeze • Change (Transition) • Refreeze

    Strengths

    • Elegant simplicity — easy to understand and communicate

    • Force-field analysis (driving vs. restraining) remains powerful

    • Foundational — most modern models build on Lewin’s work

    • Emphasizes that change requires destabilization first

    Where It Stops Short

    • Too high-level for practical implementation

    • Assumes change is linear and can be “refrozen”

    • No guidance on people, tools, processes, or measurement

    • Modern organizations live in continuous change — you rarely refreeze

    McKinsey 7-S Framework

    Waterman & Peters • 1970s • Organizational alignment

    Strategy • Structure • Systems • Shared Values • Style • Staff • Skills

    Strengths

    • Holistic — examines the full organizational system

    • Forces you to consider ripple effects of any change

    • Effective for mergers, restructuring, and strategic shifts

    • Recognizes that culture (Shared Values) is central

    Where It Stops Short

    • Diagnostic, not prescriptive — tells you what to look at, not what to do

    • Internally focused; ignores external market forces

    • Complex — seven moving parts with no clear starting point

    • Treats “Staff” as one of seven elements, not the priority

    Bridges’ Transition Model

    William Bridges • 1991 • Emotional/psychological focus

    Ending & Letting Go • The Neutral Zone • The New Beginning

    Strengths

    • Deeply empathetic — acknowledges grief, loss, and confusion

    • Critical insight: change ≠ transition

    • Useful for understanding resistance and emotional barriers

    • Pairs well with other, more structural frameworks

    Where It Stops Short

    • Not a full change management framework on its own

    • No guidance on strategy, tools, process, or measurement

    • Doesn’t help you plan or execute — only understand the emotional terrain

    • Leaders often need more than empathy; they need a playbook

    Side-by-Side Comparison

    Here’s where these models actually differ in practice. We evaluated each framework across the dimensions that matter most when you’re leading a real project.

    Dimension ADKAR Kotter Lewin 7-S Bridges 5P Framework
    Defines measurable purpose No Partially No No No Yes — required
    Addresses people Yes (individual) Yes (coalition) Minimal Partial Yes (emotional) Yes — explicit step
    Defines repeatable process Partial Yes (8 steps) No No (diagnostic) No Yes — explicit step
    Addresses tools/platform No No No Partial (Systems) No Yes — explicit step
    Measures performance No No No No No Yes — required
    Focus level Individual Org (top-down) Org (theory) Org (diagnostic) Individual (emotional) Project (any scale)
    Prescriptive vs. descriptive Prescriptive Prescriptive Descriptive Diagnostic Descriptive Prescriptive
    Complexity 5 stages 8 steps 3 phases 7 elements 3 phases 5 steps
    Works for AI/tech projects Adaptable Adaptable Too abstract Adaptable Adaptable Built for it

    Where the 5P Framework Is Different

    The comparison table reveals a pattern: every major model has at least one critical gap. ADKAR doesn’t define the project purpose. Kotter doesn’t measure outcomes. Lewin and Bridges don’t address tools or process. McKinsey 7-S is diagnostic, not prescriptive. None of them were built with technology adoption in mind.

    The 5P Framework wasn’t designed to be the most comprehensive model. It was designed to be the most complete one — covering the full lifecycle of a project from “why are we doing this?” to “did it work?”

    Three Things the 5P Framework Does That Others Don’t

    1. It forces you to define success before you start.

    Every 5P engagement begins with Purpose — a measurable question. Not a vision statement. Not a mission. A question with a measurable answer. “What is the impact of our email marketing on revenue?” is a purpose. “Improve our marketing” is not. This single requirement eliminates the most common reason projects go sideways: nobody agreed on what “done” looks like.

    2. It puts technology in its place.

    Platform is the fourth P, not the first. This is deliberate. In the age of AI, the gravitational pull toward shiny new tools is stronger than ever. Teams want to start with “let’s use ChatGPT” or “let’s deploy this AI agent” before they’ve defined why, who, or how. The 5P Framework makes it structurally impossible to jump to Platform without first addressing Purpose, People, and Process.

    3. It closes the loop.

    Performance ties directly back to Purpose. Did you answer the question you set out to answer? Did the metrics move? If your performance metrics don’t map to your original purpose, you either have the wrong metrics or the wrong purpose. This feedback loop is conspicuously absent from every other major framework.

    A note on flexibility: Purpose always comes first. Performance always comes last. But People, Process, and Platform can be addressed in whatever order your situation demands — and they can be defined in parallel. The framework isn’t rigid. It’s bookended.

    Which Framework Should You Actually Use?

    The honest answer: it depends on what you need.

    If your challenge is individual adoption — getting specific people to change their behavior — ADKAR is excellent. It gives you a diagnostic for exactly where an individual is stuck and what to do about it. Pair it with the 5P Framework at the project level and ADKAR at the individual level, and you have both the strategic structure and the personal playbook.

    If your challenge is organizational momentum — getting a large enterprise to move in a new direction — Kotter gives you the political and cultural roadmap. Building coalitions, creating urgency, and generating short-term wins are critical skills for navigating organizational politics. The 5P Framework can sit underneath Kotter as the project-level structure for each initiative within the larger transformation.

    If your challenge is emotional resistance — people are grieving the old way or paralyzed in the “neutral zone” — Bridges gives you the language and empathy framework to meet them where they are. It complements the 5P Framework’s more structured approach.

    If your challenge is organizational alignment — you suspect the problem isn’t the change itself but a misalignment between strategy, structure, and culture — McKinsey 7-S gives you the diagnostic. Use it to identify the root cause, then use the 5P Framework to plan and execute the fix.

    If your challenge is any project that involves technology, AI, or digital transformation — the 5P Framework was built for this. It’s the only model that explicitly addresses tool selection as a distinct step that comes after Purpose, People, and Process.

    Bottom line: The 5P Framework is not a competitor to these models. It’s a complement that fills the gaps they leave — particularly around measurable purpose, explicit technology decisions, and performance accountability. Use the 5P Framework as your project-level operating system, and layer other models on top for specific challenges.

    Getting Started with the 5P Framework

    If you’re ready to try the 5P Framework on your next project, here’s where to begin:

    Start with Purpose. Take whatever project is on your plate right now and restate its goal as a measurable question. Not “implement AI in our marketing” — but “What is the measurable impact of using generative AI on our content production efficiency?” If you can’t state your purpose as a question with a measurable answer, you’re not ready to move forward.

    Then work the Ps. Identify the People (stakeholders, team members, customers). Define the Process (repeatable, documented steps). Choose the Platform (tools that serve the process, not the other way around). Set your Performance metrics (tied directly to your Purpose question).

    Then measure. After execution, come back to your Purpose statement. Did you answer the question? If yes, document it and share the results. If no, diagnose which P broke down and iterate.

    How AI-Ready Is Your Organization?

    Take the free AI Project Vital Signs Assessment — 20 questions based on the 5P Framework.

    Take the Free Assessment →

    Explore the 5P Framework:   Framework Hub  •  Change Management  •  AI Strategy  •  Getting Started