The Enterprise Change Office

The Enterprise Change Office

Organisational Change is the process of reshaping how an enterprise works, from its strategy and structures to its culture and ways of working, so it can stay aligned with its goals and thrive in a dynamic and sometimes uncertain world. A clear definition of organisational change is crucial because it shapes how leaders plan, resource, and manage change.

Contents
Literature Definitions

When researching organisational change, you can encounter several definitions throughout the internet and in the literature. Here are a few notable definitions and their sources:

Harvard Business School Online (HBSO), the digital learning platform of Harvard Business School, offers interactive, case-based courses designed to deliver the school’s prestigious business education to learners worldwide. According to HBSO, organisational change refers to:

“The actions in which a company or business alters a major component of its organization, such as company culture, the underlying technologies or infrastructure it uses to operate, or its internal processes.”

It further defines Organisational Change Management as:

“The process of guiding organizational change to a successful resolution.”

However, a criticism of HBSO’s definition is its focus solely on significant components of the organisation. This blog, daschange.info, suggests that a comprehensive definition of organisational change should also include Developmental Change.

The Chartered Management Institute is the UK’s leading professional body for management and leadership, dedicated to improving the quality and standards of leadership in organisations. The Chartered Management Institute defines managing change as:

“Accomplishing a transition from position A to position B and handling any problems which come up during the process. The process of change within organisations usually results from interactions between four major elements: equipment (technology); processes (working procedures); organisation structure; and people. Change to any one of these will inevitably lead to changes to the others, as organisations are complex inter-related systems.”

Change Management – CMI (Retrieved 29 May 2025)

The Change Management Institute is a global, independent, not-for-profit association dedicated to advancing the discipline of change management. Interestingly, the Change Management Institute does not provide a specific definition for organisational change. Instead, it offers a narrower definition of change management to the two sources above, stating it as: 

“A domain of principles and practices that enable stakeholders of change to adopt the mindsets, behaviours and capabilities required for that change to deliver full business value. It focuses on people.”

This definition can be traced back to the false binary dichotomy of “Change Management” versus “Project Management,” which was adopted in the 1990s by a proprietary methodology for its own purposes.

This blog, daschange.info, fully acknowledges the importance of facilitating people’s transitions to new ways of working in response to organisational change. It uses the term Change Engagement to refer to this aspect of organisational change.

A Holistic Definition Of Organisational Change And Organisational Change Management

This blog, daschange.info, builds on the Harvard Business School Online definition. The blog defines organisational change in the private sector as follows:

Organisational Change in the private sector refers to the process of adjusting or reshaping facets of the organisational ecosystem, including its business model, value chain, operating model, and culture. This process ensures alignment with and the capability to deliver on the organisation’s strategy.

And correspondingly:

“Organisational Change Management is a structured approach that helps an organisation transition from its current state to a more strategically aligned state. It guides the necessary adjustments to the organisational ecosystem, and ways of working, while also engaging people to adopt and sustain new behaviours.”

What Is The Organisation's Ecosystem?

ecosystem

A Construct For Organisational Change

These definitions are encapsulated in the construct illustrated in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Organisational Change Construct
construct

construct

At the core of this construct are the strategy, the framework of Objectives and Key Results (OKRs), and the evolving organisational ecosystem. Together, these components illustrate how an organisation transitions from its current, often less-than-ideal state to a more optimised state that is better aligned with its goals.

At first glance at the construct, it may seem that organisational change is strictly a top-down process, moving in a direct line from strategy to execution.

However, in reality, change is much more dynamic. Whilst strategy provides the overall direction, the methods that bring it to life heavily rely on insights and needs identified at the operational level. This is where cascading frameworks of OKRs play a crucial role, ensuring that each business function interprets the strategy within its own context and translates it into clear time-bound objectives.

Organisational Change Management At Differing Levels And The Role Of An Enterprise Change Office

The construct outlined above illustrates that organisational change is not a one-time event but a layered process that must be managed at multiple levels: portfolio, initiative, and individual. Each level serves a distinct purpose, yet they are interconnected, creating a system where alignment is essential.

This blog, daschange.info, introduces the concept of an Enterprise Change Office (ECO). This function can serve as the central hub for managing and coordinating change within an enterprise. The ECO can adopt a comprehensive perspective across the three levels, ensuring that the collective efforts of change are strategically aligned, well-sequenced, and sustainable.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Organisational Change Management at the portfolio level focuses on selecting, prioritising, and sequencing initiatives in alignment with the enterprise’s strategy. It involves balancing the ongoing needs of the business with the imperative for change, all while recognising that resources are limited and that change fatigue is a genuine concern. Portfolio-level management offers oversight, enabling leaders to make necessary trade-offs, adjust course when strategies evolve, and ensure that the collection of initiatives effectively guides the enterprise towards a well-tuned ecosystem.

At the portfolio level, the ECO provides visibility across the full landscape of initiatives, enabling leadership to balance resources, manage risks, and avoid duplication. It ensures that change investments collectively move the organisation toward its strategic goals rather than pulling in competing directions.

At the initiative level, Organisational Change Management focuses on the structured delivery of specific outcomes. Each initiative aims to address particular gaps within the organisational ecosystem, whether in processes, culture, technology, or capabilities. The role of change management in this context is to guide these initiatives from design to implementation, ensuring they align with the overall strategy and engage stakeholders effectively. At this level, clarity regarding scope, sequencing, and benefits realisation is critical, as achieving incremental wins helps to build credibility and momentum.

At the initiative level, the ECO provides frameworks, tools, and guidance to ensure each change initiative effort is delivered in a structured and consistent way that aligns with organisational priorities and governance. The ECO also acts as an advisory partner to the initiative teams.

Ultimately, organisational change succeeds only when individuals adjust their mindsets, behaviours, and ways of working. Change management here means equipping people with the understanding, skills, and support to transition successfully. This is where “change engagement” plays a vital role — ensuring that employees not only accept but also sustain new practices. Without this human adoption, even the most well-designed initiatives risk falling short of delivering their intended value.

At the individual level, the ECO supports the human aspect of change by embedding practices that engage employees, build capability, and sustain adoption. It recognises that successful transformation is not only about systems and processes but also about shifting mindsets and behaviours.

In short, Organisational Change Management must operate across all three levels simultaneously: steering at the portfolio level, structuring at the initiative level, and embedding at the individual level. The alignment between these layers ensures that strategy is delivered not just on paper, but in the lived reality of the enterprise.

Within this construct, the ECO can act as a bridge between strategy and execution, ensuring that organisational change is implemented as a cohesive effort rather than as disjointed attempts.

Read On

A Definition Of Organisational Change

There is no single universally accepted definition of organisational change. Whilst differing perspectives offer valuable insights, they often emphasise different aspects of organisational change.

Applying Governing Logic and the Enterprise System: A South African Retrospective

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.

Should An Enterprise Change Office Span Both Orders Of Change?

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.

Transformational Change And Enterprise Probing

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.

Communicating Transformational Change

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.

Categorising And Communicating System Change

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.

What Is Organisational Ambidexterity?

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.

Understanding The Governing Logic

This website adopts a strategy-led framework that examines the relationships between strategy, the Enterprise System, Operational Continuity, Governance Logic, and the Two Orders of Organisational Change.
error: Content is protected !!

Ecosystem

A Construct For Organisational Change

Organisational Change is the process of adjusting or reshaping facets of the organisational ecosystem to ensure alignment with and the capability to deliver on the organisation’s strategy

This process is encapsulated in the construct illustrated in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Organisational Change Construct

The elements of this construct are:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Strategy

Accordion Content
Accordion Content

Does First-Order And Second-Order Change Still Apply?

A valid question is whether these concepts, developed in a different era, remain relevant today. Organisations now operate in environments described as VUCA – Volatile, Complex, Nonlinear, and Continuously Changing. Recently, BANI – Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible – has joined VUCA in describing such conditions. Does thinking from the 1970s and 1980s still provide value?

These concepts remain useful because First-Order and Second-Order Change classify what is being changed, not the environment in which change occurs.

An organisation in a highly uncertain environment may continually adapt its processes, structures, technologies, and capabilities, while its underlying assumptions and principles remain intact. Regardless of the extent or complexity, such adaptations are considered First-Order Change as defined here.

At times, environmental changes may challenge these underlying assumptions. When an organisation must reconsider how it creates value, exercises authority, allocates resources, defines its identity, or manages accountability, it enters the realm of Second-Order Change.

This distinction does not require change to move neatly from one stable state to another. Continuous adaptation, experimentation, and emergence can all occur within First-Order Change. The distinction is analytical, focusing on what is changing rather than the timing or frequency of change.

The boundary between these types of change may not always be clear, especially when ongoing adaptation starts to challenge the organisation’s underlying assumptions. However, the distinction remains analytically valuable: it clarifies whether change occurs within the existing Governing Logic or if that logic itself is being reconsidered.

VUCA and BANI offer different ways to describe organisational environments, but they do not replace the need to ask a fundamental question: Are we changing the organisational system within its existing logic, or does that logic itself require reconsideration?

Linda Ackerman and Three Types of Change

Linda Ackerman developed an influential distinction between Developmental, Transitional and Transformational Change in Ackerman (1986). At the time, she was primarily an Organisation Development practitioner and consultant.

Ackerman defined Developmental Change as improving existing conditions. Transitional Change involves moving from a current state to a clearly defined new state, with the transition managed over a controlled period. In contrast, Transformational Change results in a new state that emerges over time and is not fully known in advance.

This distinction is important because it makes transformation qualitatively different from continuous improvement or implementing a set organisational design. The three types of change are explored in Figure 2.

Developmental Change Improvement of what is; new state is a prescribed enhancement of the old state. 26_11
Transitional Change Design and implementation of a desired new state that solves an old state problem; requires management of the transition process to dismantle the old state while putting in place the new state; managed timetable. 26_12
Transformational Change

Market requirements force fundamental changes in strategy, operations, and worldview.

New state is unknown - it emerges from visioning, trial and error discovery, and learnings.

New state requires fundamental shift in mindset, organising principles, behaviour, and or culture, as well as organisational changes, all designed to support new business directions.

Critical mass of organisation must operate from new mindset and behaviour for transformation to succeed and new business model or direction to be sustained.

26_13

Figure best viewed on tablet or above

Adapted from Ackerman (1986) and Ackerman Anderson (2016) 

Figure 2: Ackerman’s Classification Of Change

On this website, daschange.info, Ackerman’s Developmental and Transitional Change are considered forms of First-Order System Change, while Transformational Change aligns with Second-Order Transformational Change. This mapping is an analytical interpretation provided by this website, and not part of Ackerman’s original model:

  • Developmental and Transitional Change are treated as forms of First-Order Change, since both can occur while the underlying organisational order remains substantially intact.
  • Transformational Change is associated with Second-Order Change, where that underlying order itself is changing, and the eventual future state cannot necessarily be specified in advance.

References

Ackerman, L. S. (1986) ‘Development, Transition, or Transformation: The Question of Change in Organizations’, OD Practitioner, 18(4), pp. 1–8.

Ackerman Anderson, L. (2016) ‘Organization Development and Transformation: What It Takes’, in Rothwell, W.J., Stavros, J.M. and Sullivan, R.L. (eds.) Practicing Organization Development: Leading Transformation and Change. 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 60–78

Jean Bartunek And Michael Moch And The Orders Of Change

The Organisational Development scholars Jean Bartunek and Michael Moch developed the distinction between different orders of organisational change from a cognitive perspective. In Bartunek and Moch (1987), they examined how the concept of schemata could help explain different forms of organisational change.

Schemata are organising frameworks through which people understand and interpret events. Bartunek and Moch described First-Order Change as incremental change occurring within schemata already shared by organisational members. Second-Order Change involves modification of those shared schemata themselves.

They also introduced Third-Order Change, which they described as developing the capacity of an organisation’s members to recognise their existing schemata and change them as circumstances require.

Their work extended the distinction between First-Order and Second-Order Change by highlighting the importance of how organisational members interpret their environment. It demonstrated that fundamental change may require altering the shared frameworks through which organisational reality is understood, not just structures, processes, or behaviours.

References

Bartunek, J. M. & Moch, M. K. (1987) ‘First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), pp. 483–500.

Amir Levy And Second-Order Change

Amir Levy was an organisational theorist whose work in the 1980s helped develop the distinction between First-Order and Second-Order Change specifically in relation to organisations.

Levy (1986) distinguished between changes within an existing organisational framework and Second-Order Change, which involves more fundamental organisational transformation. He characterised Second-Order Change as multidimensional, multilevel, qualitative, and discontinuous, involving a shift in organisational paradigm.

Together with Uri Merry, Levy developed these ideas further in Levy & Merry (1986). Their work examined organisational transformation through a range of perspectives, including organisational paradigms, culture, myths, purpose and approaches to managing Second-Order Change.

Levy’s work was instrumental in defining organisational transformation as conceptually distinct from extensive or incremental change. Transformation involves a qualitative shift in the organisation and its underlying paradigm, not just the scale or quantity of changes.

References

Levy, A. (1986) ‘Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization’, Organizational Dynamics, 15(1), pp. 5–23.

Levy, A. & Merry, U. (1986) Organizational Transformation: Approaches, Strategies, and Theories. New York: Praeger.

Paul Watzlawick And The Two Orders Of Change

Paul Watzlawick was a psychologist, communication theorist and influential figure at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. Working with John Weakland and Richard Fisch, he drew on systems theory to examine why attempts to solve problems sometimes leave the underlying conditions that generate them unchanged.

Watzlawick et al (1974) distinguished between First-Order and Second-Order Change. First-Order Change occurs within an existing system: its components, behaviours or processes may change while the rules governing the system remain substantially intact. Second-Order Change alters the system itself by changing the rules, assumptions or relationships through which it operates.

This distinction was further developed and applied to organisational change by Levy, Bartunek, and Moch. Ackerman, meanwhile, introduced a related framework distinguishing Developmental, Transitional, and Transformational Change.

Watzlawick et al. provides an important conceptual foundation for the Two Orders of Organisational Change used within this website.

References

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H. & Fisch, R. (1974) Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

The Office of Government Commerce And P3O®

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) was a UK government body established in 2000 to promote efficiency and best practices in public sector procurement, project management, and programme management. One of its significant contributions was the development of the P3O® (Portfolio, Programme, and Project Offices) framework, first published in 2008. This framework provides principles and guidance on designing and operating effective support structures for delivering change. P3O® was created in response to the growing need for organisations to align their strategies with execution and to standardise the roles of PMOs across different contexts.

In 2014, the stewardship of the OGC’s best practice portfolio was transferred to AXELOS, a joint venture between the UK Cabinet Office and Capita. AXELOS continues to maintain and publish the official P3O® guidance, with the most recent version being “Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices: P3O® Guidance” (AXELOS, 2013).

The guidance outlines a hierarchy of structures, which is summarised in Exhibit 1. It also notes that “projects” can stand alone and do not need to be part of a “programme”.

Exhibit 1: P30® Hierarchy