ADKAR

Answer in brief

ADKAR is Prosci’s model for individual change. Its five elements are Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement. It helps structure a conversation about what a person needs to adopt and sustain a different way of working. Prosci distinguishes this individual model from its complete change management methodology. Prosci ADKAR Model

For the wider organizational context, start with the change management guide. Use ADKAR to make individual support more specific. A person who understands an instruction may still lack the equipment or opportunity to act. Someone who can perform a task may still question whether the change is worthwhile.

Origin, status and evidence

Prosci attributes ADKAR to its founder Jeff Hiatt. The descriptions cited here are public sources from the model’s commercial owner. They are primary evidence for what the model says, not independent proof that it outperforms other approaches. Prosci’s change management process

Prosci presents the elements as sequential and recommends attending to the earliest unmet element. That is a prescription within the model. It should not be inflated into a universal law that every person experiences change in one fixed order. Why the ADKAR model works

This guide does not reproduce a proprietary assessment or scoring threshold. The prompts and working records below are original editorial practice guidance. They are intended for thoughtful discussion, not diagnosis of personality or employee performance.

When to use it

Use ADKAR when a specific role or person needs to adopt a defined change and a conversation can lead to practical support. Prepare the before-and-after task, known constraints, and an explanation of how discussion notes will be used. Invite the person to correct the manager’s assumptions.

Do not use it to decide whether a strategy is sound, diagnose someone’s personality, or rank employees by willingness to change. For conflicts about fairness, staffing, or authority, involve the people who can alter those conditions. The expected output is an agreed support action and review point, not a score that claims to explain the person.

The five elements in practice

The following table paraphrases the model’s elements and adds original questions a practitioner can use.

Element	Focus	Editorial conversation prompt
Awareness	Understanding the need for change	What problem is this intended to address?
Desire	Willingness to participate and support	What makes participation worthwhile or difficult for you?
Knowledge	Knowing how to change	What would you need to learn to do the task?
Ability	Performing the required work	Can you show how this works in your actual setting?
Reinforcement	Sustaining the change	What helps the new routine continue over time?

The element names and focus come from Prosci’s model description; the prompts are not an official Prosci instrument.

A CLOSER LOOK

Five prompts, not one readiness score.

1. 01
   AwarenessCan the person explain why the change is needed?
2. 02
   DesireWhat shapes willingness to participate?
3. 03
   KnowledgeWhat does the person need to learn for this task?
4. 04
   AbilityCan the task be performed in real working conditions?
5. 05
   ReinforcementWhat supports continued use of the new practice?

Awareness: explain the need

Prosci makes a useful distinction between knowing that a change is happening and understanding why it is needed. Awareness concerns the latter. A launch date or a project logo cannot supply that explanation. Awareness in ADKAR

As practice guidance, explain the problem in language relevant to the person’s work. Show the evidence behind the decision, the intended outcome and the limits of what is known. Be clear about which choices remain open.

Ask the person to explain their understanding in their own words, without treating the conversation as a test. A mismatch may reveal unclear communication, but it may also reveal disagreement about the evidence. Those require different responses.

Do not manufacture urgency. If the reason is a leadership decision rather than an immediate external crisis, say so. Credible communication can acknowledge uncertainty and tradeoffs.

Desire: listen to the terms of participation

Our practical recommendation is to explore what the change asks of the person. Does it affect workload, autonomy, status, competence, working hours or relationships? What benefits do they expect, and who receives them?

Avoid labeling a reasonable objection as a motivational defect. If a new process adds work without removing old requirements, the issue may require redesign or a resource decision. If people believe their suggestions will be ignored, asking them to provide more feedback is insufficient without a credible response.

Distinguish willingness from visible enthusiasm. A person may participate responsibly while remaining critical of the decision. The useful question is what arrangement will support the required work and allow concerns to be heard.

Document issues that the manager cannot solve and assign an escalation owner. Do not leave structural problems on the individual’s action list.

Knowledge: make learning task-specific

Write down the tasks the person must perform. Then provide instruction that matches them. A general presentation may explain a system but leave someone unable to handle the cases their role encounters.

As editorial guidance, combine a concise explanation with a worked example, guided practice and a reference people can use during the task. Include the exceptions that are frequent or consequential enough to matter.

Check understanding through a realistic scenario. Ask how the person would begin, what information they need and when they would seek help. The aim is to find gaps while support is available.

Schedule learning near enough to use that people can practice. If the workflow changes after training, update the material and make the differences explicit. Completion records should not be used as a substitute for evidence that the person can perform the work.

Ability: examine actual conditions

Knowing what to do differs from doing it under ordinary constraints. Observe a task or arrange a realistic rehearsal, with the person’s understanding of how the observation will be used.

Check access, time, tools, handoffs and authority. A successful demonstration in a quiet training room may not establish performance during a busy shift. Conversely, failure during a system outage says little about someone’s skill.

COM-B provides a complementary lens by explicitly considering capability, opportunity and motivation. Its original paper develops a framework for behaviour-change intervention design; it is not a validation of ADKAR. The behaviour change wheel

The editorial implication is to examine the environment whenever an ability gap appears. Fixing permissions or assigning decision authority may be more relevant than repeating instruction.

Reinforcement: support the continuing routine

Our practice guidance is to make ongoing use easier to maintain. Assign responsibility for support, keep reference material accurate and ensure managers’ instructions align with the new process.

Recognize useful work specifically: which action helped, and why? Avoid rewards that encourage a narrow metric while undermining the wider outcome. For example, rewarding the number of tickets closed could discourage careful handling of difficult cases.

Plan how to address exceptions and regression without immediately blaming individuals. Ask what changed in the environment, workload or incentives. A temporary support arrangement may need to remain longer than expected, or the process itself may need revision.

Retiring an old route can be part of implementation, but do so only after addressing legitimate needs that it served. Otherwise people may create an unofficial workaround with less visibility.

A stepwise way to use the model

This is an original application sequence, not an official assessment:

1. Define the specific behaviour or task under discussion.
2. Explain the purpose of the conversation and how notes will be used.
3. Ask open questions across all five elements.
4. Record observations and the person’s own explanation separately.
5. Identify the most useful support action, including organizational actions.
6. Agree an owner, a review point and evidence of progress.
7. Revisit the interpretation after support has been tried.

Use qualitative notes unless a suitable measurement approach is available. Do not invent a numerical threshold and present it as validated. Different roles may face different barriers, and a team average can conceal them.

Hypothetical example: using a shared knowledge base

Imagine a customer-support team replacing personal answer documents with a shared knowledge base. This example is fictional.

One experienced agent understands that inconsistent answers are a problem but worries that the shared material is less reliable than their own notes. Calling this a knowledge gap would miss the concern. The manager arranges a review of disputed content and clarifies who can correct it.

Another agent supports the change and knows how to search, but the knowledge base is unavailable through the workstation used on an evening shift. Their immediate obstacle is access. Additional encouragement would not resolve it.

A new agent has reliable access but struggles to select the right answer for unusual requests. Guided practice with realistic cases and an escalation route may be appropriate.

The team then agrees ownership for content maintenance and reviews whether agents can find usable answers. These are proposed actions, not reported outcomes or evidence that ADKAR caused success.

A CLOSER LOOK

Similar symptoms can need different responses.

1. 01
   Unclear purposeDiscuss the actual problem and concerns about the proposed change.
2. 02
   Unfamiliar taskProvide task-specific practice and check understanding.
3. 03
   Unavailable systemResolve access and working conditions; encouragement cannot restore a connection.

What the model leaves outside the frame

Organizational change requires coordination as well as individual progress. Weiner’s readiness theory concerns shared commitment and collective confidence, which are not established simply by adding up individual conversations. Organizational readiness theory

ADKAR also cannot decide whether the proposed change is strategically sound, fairly designed or adequately funded. Pair it with process analysis, participation and clear decision authority. See change management for the broader task.

Measure the intended operating outcome alongside adoption. GDS benefits guidance provides a separate institutional rationale for baselines and revisiting benefit estimates as evidence emerges. It does not establish a success criterion for ADKAR. Measuring service benefits

Next steps

Choose one concrete work change and use the five elements to prepare a supportive conversation. Follow the person’s evidence rather than forcing every answer into a preferred category. Close with one action the organization will take as well as any agreed individual action.

Use stakeholder mapping to find missing perspectives. Keep broader claims about change success separate from this model, and consult the change failure myth before using generic failure statistics to justify a programme.