Change Management (Level 3)

Question 1

How have you developed a strategy for change within an organisation?

Answer 1

In the DAB initiative, I developed a governance strategy to address inconsistent application of the Defra Design Guide.

Applied Lewin’s 3-Stage Model to unfreeze existing processes.

Used Force Field Analysis to weigh drivers (assurance, sustainability) vs restrainers (delivery speed).

Produced a proportionate, tiered DAB to balance oversight and efficiency.

Question 2

How have you carried out an option appraisal in respect of change strategies?

Answer 2

In the DAB initiative, I appraised 3 governance options: centralised, devolved, proportionate.

Applied HM Treasury Green Book principles (desirability, viability, feasibility).

Centralised = too bureaucratic; devolved = insufficient oversight.

Proportionate = minimal cost, strong assurance, flexible delivery.

Question 3

How have you communicated the costs and benefits of a change project?

Answer 3

For the DAB proposal, I highlighted minimal costs (existing staff resource only).

Set out benefits: reduced rework, improved Net Zero compliance, cross-ALB collaboration.

Used past examples of costly rework to show avoided risks.

Framed case as high value for money.

Question 4

How have you offered alternative strategic options based on an organisation’s requirements?

Answer 4

In the DAB case, I presented centralised, devolved, and proportionate models.

Linked each option to Defra’s needs: speed, assurance, efficiency.

Recommended the tiered model as the best fit for organisational requirements.

Question 5

How have you presented a proposed strategy to stakeholders with a clear recommendation?

Answer 5

In the DAB rollout, I presented the tiered model to senior stakeholders.

Structured case: problem → options → evaluation → recommendation.

Used diagrams to show escalation process.

Clear recommendation: proportionate DAB for balanced assurance.

Question 6

DAB – What was your overall recommendation and why?

Answer 6

My recommendation was a proportionate, tiered DAB.

Embedded strategy reps on major refurbishments, escalation only if required.

Balanced assurance and efficiency better than centralised or devolved options.

Question 7

How have you undertaken stakeholder analysis?

Answer 7

During the DAB initiative, I used an influence/interest grid.

Senior leadership = high influence; project managers = high interest.

Identified “resistors” concerned about delivery delays.

Analysis shaped targeted engagement and comms.

Question 8

How have you managed stakeholders to ensure resolution of issues?

Answer 8

In the DAB process, I addressed concerns about delays.

Held workshops and 1:1s to co-design escalation triggers.

Piloted model to prove no impact on delivery speed.

Result: built confidence and secured buy-in.

Question 9

How have you produced communications and stakeholder engagement plans?

Answer 9

For the DAB change, I created a plan based on RICS/APM principles.

Tailored approach:

 Workshops with delivery teams.

 Briefings with leadership.

 Regular updates for staff networks.

Result: transparency, reduced resistance.

Question 10

DAB – how did you manage your stakeholders through this change?

Answer 10

Engaged stakeholders early and often (RIC/ APM Stakeholder Holder Management Guidance).

Used pilots to demonstrate assurance without delay.

Targeted workshops + regular updates to build trust.

Question 11

DAB – How did you ensure you understood the evolving business needs?

Answer 11

Maintained feedback loops during the DAB rollout.

Aligned model to shifting priorities: Net Zero, efficiency, cost control.

Adjusted scope so model applied only to high-risk projects.

Question 12

Design governance – how did you identify the need for a proportionate DAB?

Answer 12

Analysed past projects: inconsistent Net Zero application, costly rework.

Identified governance gap as root cause.

Concluded a proportionate DAB was needed to ensure compliance.

Question 13

DAB – What other governance options did you consider?

Answer 13

Considered centralised DAB (too rigid) and devolved model (too weak).

Only the proportionate model balanced assurance and flexibility.

Question 14

Why was a proportionate DAB more appropriate than a centralised option?

Answer 14

Centralised = bureaucratic, costly, risk of bottlenecks.

Proportionate = embedded reps, escalation only if needed.

Achieved assurance without slowing delivery.

Question 15

DAB – How did you overcome the initial stakeholder resistance?

Answer 15

Resistance = fear of delays.

Piloted model on live refurbishment → no delivery impact.

Workshops + 1:1s addressed concerns.

Built trust through early wins.

Question 16

How have you obtained approval for implementation of a proposal?

Answer 16

For the DAB case, I built an evidence-based business case.

Highlighted benefits vs minimal costs.

Presented to senior leadership, secured formal approval.

Question 17

How have you project managed the implementation of a change programme?

Answer 17

Managed the DAB rollout using milestones, RAG reporting, risk registers.

Piloted first, then scaled.

Ensured consistent adoption without resource strain.

Question 18

How have you addressed and assessed risks presented by change?

Answer 18

In the DAB implementation, risks = delivery delays, stakeholder disengagement, inconsistent uptake.

Logged in risk register, scored likelihood/impact.

Mitigated via phased rollout and pilot testing.

Question 19

DAB – How did you pilot the approach?

Answer 19

Piloted on a live refurbishment project.

Embedded strategy/ design rep, tested escalation process.

Outcome: design risks flagged early, rework avoided, no delays.

Question 20

DAB – How did you ensure it was embedded consistently across projects?

Answer 20

Rolled out to all major refurbishments.

Standardised escalation routes and templates.

Monitored adoption through feedback and review sessions.

Question 21

DAB – What advice have you given as a result of early risk identification through this approach?

Answer 21

Advised project teams on Net Zero design risks flagged early.

Recommended adjustments pre-procurement.

Saved time and cost by preventing rework.

Question 22

How have you received feedback and revised the strategy for change?

Answer 22

Gathered feedback from delivery teams + senior leaders.

Revised scope so model applied only to high-risk projects.

Adjusted escalation triggers to reduce unnecessary involvement.

Question 23

What feedback did you receive on the DAB proposal?

Answer 23

Initial: concern over added bureaucracy.

Later: positive recognition of reduced rework + stronger compliance.

Question 24

How did you deal with this feedback?

Answer 24

Acknowledged concerns, piloted to prove efficiency.

Adjusted approach based on delivery team input.

Question 25

Tell me about a time when you have reviewed post-implementation outcomes?

Answer 25

Reviewed outcomes of the DAB pilot project. Found early risk identification avoided rework, no delivery delays. Validated wider rollout of the model.

Question 26

How have you evaluated the success of an organisational change project?

Answer 26

Evaluated the DAB initiative post-implementation. Success measured by: Reduced rework. Consistent Net Zero compliance. Positive stakeholder feedback.

Question 27

What lessons did you learn?

Answer 27

One-size-fits-all governance doesn’t work. Pilots + early wins reduce resistance. Continuous engagement critical for adoption.

Question 28

How did you apply them to future strategic planning?

Answer 28

Applied lessons from DAB to broader governance reforms. Promoted proportionate oversight in other estate strategies.

Question 29

How did you assess whether employee engagement increased as a result of the works?

Answer 29

In the DAB rollout, engagement tracked via surveys/workshops. Delivery staff: greater confidence in design process. Leaders: assurance Net Zero principles embedded.

Question 30

DAB – What stage is this approach at now?

Answer 30

Adopted across all major refurbishments. Embedded within Defra’s project governance. Continues to evolve through stakeholder feedback.

Question 31

How have you undertaken a change impact assessment?

Answer 31

For the DAB model, assessed impacts on: Delivery timelines (low). Assurance + compliance (high positive). Cross-ALB collaboration (positive).

Question 32

What analysis techniques did you adopt during this exercise?

Answer 32

In the DAB evaluation, I applied: Options appraisal (centralised vs devolved vs tiered). Stakeholder analysis (influence/interest grid). Force Field Analysis (drivers: Net Zero, rework; restrainers: delivery speed).

Question 33

How did you apply them to future strategic planning?

Answer 33

Lessons from DAB informed wider governance reforms. Advocated proportionate, tiered oversight across estate projects. Ensured balance between assurance, efficiency, and cost.