Article
TransformationADKAR Model: Guide, Practical Example and Comparison with Kotter
The Prosci ADKAR Model step by step: 5 elements of individual change with practical example and comparison.
The ADKAR model is an individual-focused change management framework that defines five milestones every person must pass through for change to succeed: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement. It was developed by Jeff Hiatt, founder of the research firm Prosci, and first published in 2003 [1].
What sets ADKAR apart from other change frameworks: it shifts the perspective — away from the organization, toward the individual person. Kotter’s 8-Step Model answers the question “What must the organization do?” ADKAR answers the question “What must the individual person go through?” No transformation succeeds if it takes place on only one of these two levels.
Search for “ADKAR model” and you will find dozens of results with the same five letters. None shows the model’s diagnostic strength — the ability to precisely identify where a person is stuck. None discusses the limitations: that ADKAR assumes rational progression and reaches its limits with collective, cultural dynamics. And none systematically compares ADKAR with Kotter based on their complementary strengths.
This guide closes these gaps. For a compact comparison of all change frameworks, see the overview article on change management models.
Origin: From Prosci Research to Global Adoption
Jeff Hiatt founded Prosci in 1994 as a change management research firm. From 1998, Prosci conducted large-scale benchmarking studies — with over 25,000 participants across multiple waves over 25 years [2]. From this data, Hiatt distilled the ADKAR model in 2003 as a description of the individual change journey.
The central finding from the Prosci data: Initiatives with excellent change management are six times more successful than those without [2]. But — and this is the critical nuance — “change management” here does not mean applying a particular model, but systematically supporting the people affected.
Context factor: Prosci is simultaneously a research firm and a provider of ADKAR certifications and trainings. The research data and the commercial offering are inseparable. This does not necessarily diminish the quality of the findings — but it requires critical distance when interpreting them. Comparable independent validations of the ADKAR model are lacking in the academic literature [3].
The 5 Elements in Detail
Element 1: Awareness — Understanding the Need for Change
Before a person can change their behavior, they must understand why the change is necessary. Awareness answers three questions:
- What is changing? (specific scope, not vague formulations)
- Why is it changing? (business reasons, market data, customer feedback)
- What happens if we change nothing? (risks of the status quo)
Common mistake: Awareness is confused with information. An email with the subject “Process Changes” does not create awareness — it creates anxiety. Awareness emerges when those affected can connect the change to their own work context.
Diagnostic indicator: When employees ask “Why are we doing this?”, “What is the problem?”, or “Things have always worked fine” — awareness is missing. The intervention is not “explain more” but “explain differently”: in the language of those affected, with reference to their daily work.
Element 2: Desire — The Wish to Participate in the Change
Awareness is necessary but not sufficient. An employee can fully understand why the change is needed — and still decide against it. Desire is the element that bridges the gap between understanding and wanting.
What influences Desire:
- WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?): What do I personally gain from the change? Does my job become better, more secure, more interesting?
- Trust in leadership: Do I believe that leadership is steering the change competently?
- Social environment: Do my colleagues support the change? Or is there collective resistance?
- Personal situation: Does the change fit my current life phase? Do I have the capacity?
The most critical mistake in the entire ADKAR model: Teams skip Desire and go directly from Awareness to Knowledge. “Employees understand the problem. Now we train them.” Result: people sit in trainings they do not want. They learn technically what to do — but they do not do it. Resistance is not a knowledge deficit. Resistance is a Desire deficit.
Diagnostic indicator: When employees say “I understand why this is necessary, but…” — that is a Desire problem. The “but” is the key: fear of job loss, overwhelm, lack of trust, personal costs of the change.
Connection to the Change Curve: The Change Curve describes the emotional phases people go through during change — shock, resistance, exploration, acceptance. The Desire phase in ADKAR corresponds to overcoming emotional resistance on the Change Curve. Both models describe the same moment from different perspectives: ADKAR structurally, the Change Curve emotionally.
Element 3: Knowledge — Knowing How to Change
Only when Awareness and Desire are present does Knowledge become productive. Knowledge answers the question: How do I concretely do the new thing?
Two types of Knowledge:
- Process knowledge: How does the new process work? Which steps, which tools, which systems?
- Behavioral and role knowledge: What changes about my role? Which new behaviors are expected? Which old habits must I shed?
Common mistake: Knowledge is reduced to technical training. “We train everyone on the new system” — without addressing that roles, responsibilities, and collaboration patterns also change. Result: employees can operate the new system but work in the new system with old behavioral patterns.
Methodology note: Knowledge transfer does not equal training. In some contexts, coaching, job shadowing, peer learning, or structured pilot phases are more effective than classical trainings.
Element 4: Ability — The Capacity to Execute the New Behavior
Knowledge is theory. Ability is practice. The difference: I know how to ride a bicycle (Knowledge). I can actually ride a bicycle (Ability). The transition from Knowledge to Ability requires time, practice, and tolerance for errors.
What blocks the transition from Knowledge to Ability:
- Lack of practice opportunities: New behavior is only tested in live production environments, not in protected pilot environments
- Lack of error tolerance: Mistakes in new behavior are punished rather than used as learning opportunities
- Systemic barriers: IT infrastructure, organizational structure, or processes prevent the new behavior — even when knowledge and will are present
Connection to Force Field Analysis: Force Field Analysis identifies precisely these systemic barriers — the restraining forces that prevent Knowledge from becoming Ability. When the ADKAR assessment shows that employees are stuck at Ability, Force Field Analysis is the right diagnostic tool.
Diagnostic indicator: When employees say “I know how it works, but I can’t manage it in daily work” — that is an Ability problem. The intervention is not more training but removing barriers, creating practice spaces, and providing support.
Element 5: Reinforcement — Sustaining the Change
Most changes fail not at the beginning but at the end. Reinforcement ensures that new behavior is maintained — that the organization does not fall back into old patterns after three months.
Three Reinforcement mechanisms:
- Recognition: Visible appreciation for new behavior — from direct praise to formal awards
- Consequences: Old behavior is no longer tolerated — the bonus system, promotion criteria, and performance reviews reflect the new expectations
- Measurement: Regular verification that new behavior is actually practiced — not just whether the training took place
Common mistake: Reinforcement is understood as “reward” — bonuses, certificates, celebrations. These are nice gestures, but they do not replace systemic anchoring. True Reinforcement changes the structures that reward behavior: Who gets promoted? What gets measured? What gets discussed in meetings?
ADKAR Assessment: The Diagnostic Strength
The real strength of ADKAR lies not in describing the five elements — that is relatively intuitive. It lies in the diagnostic application: the model precisely identifies where a person or group is stuck.
How the Diagnosis Works
Each element is rated on a scale of 1-5 (1 = not present, 5 = fully present). The first point where the score falls below 3 is the Barrier Point — where the change is blocked.
Example assessment for a claims processor during new claims management system introduction:
| Element | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | 4 | Understands why the new system is being introduced |
| Desire | 2 | Fears the new system will devalue her expertise |
| Knowledge | - | Not yet relevant, Desire barrier |
| Ability | - | Not yet relevant |
| Reinforcement | - | Not yet relevant |
Barrier Point: Desire. The intervention is not training (Knowledge) but addressing the fear of expertise loss — e.g., by demonstrating that the new system automates routine work and creates more time for complex cases that truly require her expertise.
Critical rule: Never invest in an element that comes after the Barrier Point. Those stuck at Desire do not benefit from Knowledge training. Those stuck at Awareness do not benefit from Desire conversations. The sequence is not optional.
Assessment at Group Level
In practice, you do not assess every person individually (with 500 affected people, that would be impractical). Instead, you identify stakeholder segments — groups with similar impact profiles — and conduct the assessment per segment.
Typical segmentation for a service digitization:
| Segment | Awareness | Desire | Knowledge | Ability | Barrier Point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claims processing | 4 | 2 | - | - | Desire |
| Team leaders | 4 | 4 | 3 | - | Knowledge |
| IT department | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | Ability |
| Customer service | 3 | - | - | - | Awareness |
What this diagnosis shows: Each segment needs a different intervention. For claims processing: Desire measures (WIIFM, future security). For team leaders: Knowledge transfer (how the new system is used in the team). For IT: Ability support (pilot environment, error tolerance). For customer service: Awareness communication (why the change also affects their work environment).
A uniform change communication for all four segments would be a waste of resources — and would answer the wrong question for at least three segments.
Practical Example: Digital Service Platform at a Bank
Context: A DACH private bank is introducing a new digital service platform. Financial advisors are to digitally document advisory sessions, generate product recommendations via algorithmic scoring, and update customer data in real time. Current state: paper-based meeting notes, manual product selection, weekly data reconciliation.
Phase 1: ADKAR Assessment (Week 1-2)
The change team segments the 320 affected people into four groups and conducts focus group conversations and brief surveys per group:
| Segment | N | Awareness | Desire | Knowledge | Ability | Barrier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced advisors (>10 yrs) | 85 | 4 | 1 | - | - | Desire |
| Younger advisors (<5 yrs) | 120 | 3 | 4 | - | - | Awareness |
| Branch management | 45 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - | Knowledge |
| Back office | 70 | 2 | - | - | - | Awareness |
Phase 2: Segment-Specific Interventions (Week 3-12)
Experienced advisors (Barrier: Desire): The fear: “The algorithmic scoring replaces my 15 years of customer knowledge.” The intervention: not training, but involvement. Experienced advisors are included in calibrating the scoring algorithm — their expertise flows into the system rather than being replaced by it. Pilot phase: 8 advisors test the system in real advisory sessions, with explicit permission to return to the old system if it does not work. Result: 6 of 8 pilot participants report the system improves their recommendations, does not replace them. These 6 become internal ambassadors.
Younger advisors (Barrier: Awareness): The gap: understand the new system technically but not the business context. Intervention: workshops with customer feedback data — “32% of our customers rate advisory quality as inconsistent. The platform standardizes quality.” Result: Awareness rises, Desire is already high — transition to Knowledge training.
Branch management (Barrier: Knowledge): The gap: understand the “what” and “why” but not the “how” for their leadership role. Intervention: management training not on the system itself but on leading teams through transition — how to moderate resistance, how to measure progress, how to address relapses.
Back office (Barrier: Awareness): The gap: “This only affects the advisors, not us.” Intervention: clear communication that the platform also changes back-office processes — new data maintenance responsibilities, changed interfaces to customer service.
Phase 3: Reinforcement (from Week 12)
- Promotion decisions consider platform usage
- Weekly dashboard shows adoption rate per branch (no ranking, no punishment — but visibility)
- Experienced advisors who served as ambassadors are highlighted in internal communication
- Quarterly ADKAR re-assessment shows where course correction is needed
Note: This example is illustratively constructed to demonstrate the ADKAR model in a service context. The figures are based on typical industry values.
Comparison: ADKAR vs. Kotter
| Dimension | ADKAR (Prosci) | Kotter (8 Steps) |
|---|---|---|
| Level | Individual | Organization |
| Core question | ”Where is the individual person stuck?" | "What must the organization do?” |
| Strength | Diagnostic — identifies the Barrier Point | Comprehensive — covers governance, coalition, vision |
| Weakness | Organizational level missing — no governance structure | Individual level missing — no emotional accompaniment |
| Evidence base | Prosci research program (25,000+ participants, proprietary) | Anecdotal (Kotter), supplementarily confirmed in literature |
| Sequence | Strictly sequential (Barrier Point determines intervention) | Nominally sequential, parallel in practice |
| Ideal case | Tool rollout, process change, individual adoption | Large-scale transformation with clear target state |
| Licensing | Proprietary (Prosci certification required for commercial use) | Openly accessible (books, HBR articles) |
The critical insight: ADKAR and Kotter are not alternatives. They address different levels of the same problem. Kotter without ADKAR loses the people. ADKAR without Kotter loses the strategic governance.
Recommended combination:
- Kotter Steps 1-3 (urgency, coalition, vision) → Creates the organizational frame
- ADKAR assessment → Diagnoses where those affected stand
- Kotter Steps 4-5 (communication, barriers) → Organizational interventions based on ADKAR diagnosis
- ADKAR interventions → Segment-specific measures per Barrier Point
- Kotter Steps 6-8 (quick wins, consolidation, culture) + ADKAR Reinforcement → Anchoring on both levels
More on combining frameworks in the overview article on change management models.
4 Common Mistakes with the ADKAR Model
1. Skipping Desire and going straight to training
Symptom: Employees were informed (Awareness). Now they are trained (Knowledge). Result: high training attendance, low adoption.
Why this hurts: Without Desire, Knowledge is ineffective. People who do not want to change learn the content — but do not apply it. Training becomes a checkbox exercise without behavioral change.
Solution: After awareness communication, conduct an ADKAR assessment. If Desire is below 3, invest in Desire — not Knowledge.
2. Using ADKAR as the only framework
Symptom: The project team uses ADKAR for everything — including organizational decisions like governance structure, communication strategy, and stakeholder management.
Why this hurts: ADKAR describes the individual journey. It provides no governance structure, no coalition logic, and no communication architecture. Using ADKAR to steer an organization overstretches the model.
Solution: Combine ADKAR with an organizational framework — typically Kotter for strategic governance.
3. Treating ADKAR as a linear process model
Symptom: “We are now in the Knowledge phase” — as though all affected people were simultaneously at the same point.
Why this hurts: Different stakeholder segments have different Barrier Points. Unified “phase” thinking means interventions arrive too early for some groups and too late for others.
Solution: Segment those affected and conduct segment-specific assessments. The A-D-K-A-R sequence applies per person/segment — not for the organization as a whole.
4. Reinforcement as a one-time activity
Symptom: The change was introduced, a success event celebrated, the project team disbanded. Three months later: relapse into old patterns.
Why this hurts: Reinforcement is not an event but a system. Without systemic anchoring — in performance reviews, bonus structures, promotion criteria — every behavioral change is temporary.
Solution: Plan Reinforcement from the start and define which structures must change for new behavior to be permanently rewarded.
When ADKAR Is NOT the Right Model
1. Organization-wide strategic transformation: ADKAR describes the individual journey of 300 individual people, not the strategic repositioning of a corporation. For the organizational level, you need Kotter’s 8-Step Model or a comparable governance framework.
2. Cultural change: ADKAR assumes rational progression — Awareness leads to Desire leads to Knowledge. With deeply rooted cultural beliefs, this logic does not hold. Culture does not change through individual milestones but through collective experiences, new rituals, and shifted power dynamics. Here, Bridges’ Transition Model or Theory U are more appropriate.
3. Unknown target state: ADKAR works best when what is changing is clear (Awareness: “This is the change”). When the target state must first be discovered, ADKAR provides no frame for exploration.
4. Collective, identity-based resistance: When a professional group sees its professional identity threatened (e.g., claims processors with automation, physicians with documentation protocols), ADKAR is not sufficient. The resistance is not individual but collective — and requires interventions at the group level.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ADKAR model?
ADKAR is an individual-focused change management model from Prosci with five sequential elements: Awareness (understanding the need), Desire (wish to participate), Knowledge (knowing how), Ability (capacity to execute), and Reinforcement (sustaining the change). It was published in 2003 by Jeff Hiatt and is based on Prosci’s research program with over 25,000 participants.
What is the difference between ADKAR and Kotter?
ADKAR describes the individual change journey (where is the individual person stuck?). Kotter describes organizational transformation (what must leadership do?). They are complementary: Kotter governs the transformation, ADKAR diagnoses and supports those affected. More in the comparison section above and in the overview article.
What is the ADKAR Barrier Point?
The Barrier Point is the first ADKAR element where a person or group scores below 3 (on a 1-5 scale). It indicates where the change is blocked — and determines the intervention. Example: Barrier Point at Desire = resistance problems. Barrier Point at Ability = implementation problems.
Is ADKAR empirically validated?
Prosci’s own research program provides extensive data (25,000+ participants, 25 years). Independent academic validations of the ADKAR model as a whole, however, are limited. The individual elements (e.g., importance of Awareness, role of Desire/motivation) are supported by general change management literature.
How do I conduct an ADKAR assessment?
Three steps: (1) Segment those affected into groups with similar impact profiles. (2) Rate each ADKAR element per segment on a scale of 1-5 (via focus groups, surveys, or interviews). (3) Identify the Barrier Point per segment and plan segment-specific interventions.
Related Methods
- Kotter’s 8-Step Model: The organizational complement to ADKAR — Kotter governs the transformation, ADKAR supports those affected
- Change Curve: Describes the emotional phases that ADKAR captures structurally — particularly relevant for the Desire phase
- Force Field Analysis: Identifies systemic barriers that block the transition from Knowledge to Ability
- Change Management Models Compared: For the decision matrix and integration architecture of all change frameworks
- Why Transformations Fail: The six most common failure patterns and why individual adoption is often the overlooked factor
Research Methodology
This article synthesizes findings from Hiatt’s original ADKAR work (2006), the Prosci Benchmarking Reports (1998-2023), the critical assessment by Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015), and the analysis of 10 German-language publications on the ADKAR model.
Limitations: The empirical basis of ADKAR predominantly comes from Prosci’s proprietary research program. Independent academic validations are limited. The practical example (bank service platform) is illustratively constructed, not a documented case study.
Disclosure
SI Labs accompanies organizations through transformation processes and employs ADKAR elements in individual change support, particularly during service transformations. SI Labs is not a certified Prosci partner. This practical experience informs the assessment of the method in this article. Readers should be aware of potential perspective bias.
References
[1] Hiatt, Jeff. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Fort Collins: Prosci, 2006. ISBN: 978-1930885509 [Monograph | Foundational Work | Citations: 2,000+ | Quality: 72/100]
[2] Prosci. Best Practices in Change Management. 12th edition. Fort Collins: Prosci, 2023. [Benchmarking Report | 25,000+ Participants | Quality: 75/100]
[3] Al-Haddad, Serina, and Timothy Kotnour. “Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 28, no. 2 (2015): 234-262. DOI: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215 [Journal Article | Literature Review | Citations: 500+ | Quality: 78/100]
[4] Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. ISBN: 978-0875847474 [Monograph | Comparison Model | Citations: 20,000+ | Quality: 82/100]
[5] Appelbaum, Steven H., Sally Habashy, Jean-Luc Malo, and Hisham Shafiq. “Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model.” Journal of Management Development 31, no. 8 (2012): 764-782. DOI: 10.1108/02621711211253231 [Systematic Review | Citations: 800+ | Quality: 80/100]
[6] Bridges, William. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. 3rd edition. Da Capo Press, 2009. ISBN: 978-0738213804 [Monograph | Complementary Model | Citations: 5,000+ | Quality: 78/100]
[7] Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. Ed. Dorwin Cartwright. New York: Harper & Row, 1951. [Foundational Work | Theoretical | Citations: 10,000+ | Quality: 90/100]