The ADKAR method, developed by Prosci, structures change around five individual milestones: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement. Its adoption now extends beyond the realm of consulting firms. Large groups like Atos integrate it into their internal certification paths, alongside SAFe or ITIL, making it a competency framework expected for positions related to digital transformation.
ADKAR in the context of hyper-change: moving beyond sequential
The ADKAR model was designed as a linear progression. In an environment of continuous releases, scaled agility, or deployment of AI tools, this sequentiality no longer holds. Employees go through multiple ADKAR cycles in parallel, at different stages depending on the projects.
See also : Everything to Know About Yoann Usai's Partner in 2026 and Their Life Together
We observe in the field that the five steps overlap as the pace of transformation accelerates. An employee may be in the Ability phase on an ERP deployment while just starting Awareness on a process redesign related to AI. Treating these cycles as independent ignores the cumulative cognitive load.
For the model to remain effective, it must be managed as a backlog of individual transitions rather than as a single tunnel. Each employee has a portfolio of active changes, and the role of the change manager is to prioritize the ADKAR milestones by order of business impact, not in alphabetical order of the model. As detailed in the ADKAR methodology explained on Campus Recrutement, a deep understanding of each step remains the foundation, even when execution ceases to be linear.
Recommended read : Everything You Need to Know About Storage Unit Rentals in Pessac, Near Bordeaux
Diagnosing the ADKAR blockage point on a transformation project
The operational value of ADKAR lies less in the description of the five steps than in its ability to precisely locate where an individual or team is falling behind. Too many deployments fail because project teams invest heavily in training (Knowledge) while the real blockage is upstream, on Desire.
A reliable ADKAR diagnosis relies on short, targeted individual interviews, not on generic satisfaction surveys. For each milestone, the question is binary: has the individual crossed this threshold, yes or no? The first “no” in the sequence identifies the priority intervention point.
In practical terms, for a large-scale ERP program (SAP, Oracle), Prosci now offers training paths dedicated to each role: sponsors, project managers, frontline managers. This granularity allows for industrializing the diagnosis and allocating support resources where the blockage is real.
- If the blockage is on Awareness, the problem is a lack of communication sponsored by management, not a lack of training materials.
- If the blockage is on Desire, no technical training will compensate for the absence of an answer to the question “what do I personally gain from this.”
- If the blockage is on Ability, the employee understands and wants to change, but the work environment (tools, processes, workload) does not allow them to practice.
ADKAR as an orchestration building block in a project portfolio
ADKAR is no longer just an HR or communication grid. Project management platforms like Asana now present it as a model for orchestrating adoption, complementary to Agile or PMI delivery frameworks.
This evolution in usage changes the posture of the change manager. They no longer produce a “change management plan” in parallel with the project. They integrate the ADKAR milestones directly into the project team’s backlog, with acceptance criteria related to actual adoption by end users.
On a transformation program with multiple simultaneous projects, we recommend mapping the populations impacted by each project, then cross-referencing this mapping with the ADKAR status of each group. The result is an adoption dashboard that complements the classic project progress indicators (budget, timeline, scope).
Integrating ADKAR into agile rituals
In a SAFe or Scrum scaled context, the Program Increment Planning offers a natural anchoring point. Each PI Planning can include an adoption objective formulated in ADKAR terms: for example, “reach the Knowledge threshold for the 40 key users of the finance module before the next PI.”
Team retrospectives also become a tool for Reinforcement. By structuring part of the retrospective around the question “what new practices have we actually adopted this sprint,” we anchor the last ADKAR milestone into an already existing ritual, without adding an extra meeting.
Limits of ADKAR and trade-offs to be aware of
The model assumes that change is desirable. It provides no framework for deciding whether a change is worth pursuing. ADKAR supports adoption; it does not validate the strategic relevance of the project. This distinction is often blurred in organizations that confuse “people resist” with “the project is poorly calibrated.”
Another limitation: the model treats the individual as the unit of analysis, which is its strength but also its blind spot. Collective dynamics (group effect, team culture, political games between management) are not modeled. An employee may have crossed all five steps individually and regress under the pressure of a collective hostile to change.
- ADKAR works best when coupled with an organizational model (Kotter for sponsorship, Lewin for group dynamics).
- In AI transformations, the Knowledge milestone requires continuous updates as tools evolve between training cycles.
- Reinforcement is the most neglected milestone in practice, yet it determines whether the change survives beyond the go-live.
The effectiveness of ADKAR depends less on the model itself than on the rigor with which the individual diagnosis is conducted and maintained over time. An ADKAR dashboard updated once at the beginning of the project and then forgotten produces no results. Change is managed continuously, or it is not managed at all.