B2. Change, change management and transformation: what do the terms mean?

We use change as an umbrella term for a departure from a previous state. This can mean small adjustments as well as far-reaching changes. In our classification, the term encompasses both intended and unplanned developments. This terminological choice follows the existing matrix; it is not presented as a verbatim definition by any single author.

A new process, a different allocation of tasks or an altered business model can therefore each constitute change. The word alone does not tell us how far the change reaches, whether it is successfully supported or whether it brings the company closer to its objective.

For the investigation, we therefore need a specific subject and a comparison: what was different before? Which people, rules or ways of working are we examining? What period does the statement refer to?

Announcing an initiative is not the same as implementing it. Introducing a new rule is, in turn, not the same as demonstrating that it is applied in everyday work. We therefore distinguish between intended change, formal introduction and observable practice. This distinction forms part of our assessment framework.

Change names the alteration. By itself, it explains neither the route taken nor the benefit.

Creasey (2026, section «Change Management Defined») describes change management as the application of structured processes and tools to direct the people side of a change towards a desired outcome. The focus is on preparation, enablement, individual adoption and use. Sustaining the change is also part of the approach. We use this explicitly people-centred definition as a named working basis, rather than the only possible definition of the entire field.

Change management thus denotes a management discipline, not an additional stage of change. It can support a limited adjustment just as it can a comprehensive transformation.

Prosci distinguishes this task from designing and delivering a solution through project management. The two perspectives are intended to work together. What it calls the technical side also includes organisational solutions and is not synonymous with information technology.

For our practical examination, this gives rise to questions such as: who is expected to work differently in future? What do these people need in order to do so? How are unanswered questions and difficulties addressed? And how does actual use become visible?

The distinction we derive is this: good communication alone does not make an unusable solution usable. A substantively suitable solution, in turn, does not yet answer how those involved can work with it. Solution quality, available resources and individual adoption need to be examined separately.

In this work, transformation denotes a fundamental change in how an organisation fulfils its purpose, creates value, allocates responsibility and works together. It may concern strategy, the business model, leadership, culture and capabilities. This is our working definition, which connects with existing research on change.

Burke and Litwin (1992, abstract) treat mission and strategy, leadership and culture as transformational factors. Their model relates these to further factors such as structure, systems and management practice. They thus formulate theoretical causal relationships, rather than merely a list of outward structural changes.

Bartunek and Moch (1987, abstract) distinguish changes within shared interpretive frameworks from changes to those frameworks themselves. An interpretive framework means the way people categorise and understand events. They also consider the ability to change such frameworks again when necessary.

This establishes that research already addresses fundamental changes in thinking and culture. We must not reduce transformation to technology and organisation charts in order to manufacture an exclusive place for the perspective on reorientation introduced later.

For our classification, the number of measures carried out is not the sole deciding factor. Rather, we ask whether the way the company or area under examination previously operated changes fundamentally. Which elements need to change and which can be retained must be shown for the particular initiative. Our working model prescribes no minimum number of departments to be restructured.

The following example is entirely constructed. It describes neither a client case nor an empirical study.

A company manufactures equipment and offers repairs. It wants to handle service requests more reliably. To do so, it introduces a shared record of requests and clear responsibilities. Its offering remains unchanged: equipment is sold and repairs are carried out when needed.

The first initiative is a bounded change. It may be economically important and demanding to implement. In the starting situation described, however, it is not yet a fundamental restructuring of the company's model.

Here, change management would support people in the new way of working: those involved clarify which information they record, how handovers take place, what support they need and how difficulties arising in use are addressed. These tasks are our application of the stated definition to the example, not a prescribed Prosci sequence.

Now consider another possible decision by the same fictional company. In future, it no longer wants primarily to sell equipment and bill individual repairs, but to offer the equipment's agreed availability as an ongoing service.

In this variant, different questions would need to be addressed: how is ongoing support organised? What capabilities are needed? What are sales and service held responsible for? What information does the company need about the condition of its equipment? What does success mean when individual sales are no longer the central focus?

According to our working definition, this second initiative would be a transformation, provided the new way of operating is actually implemented. The company realigns its service promise, economic logic and cooperation. Additional software might form part of this, but would not itself be the transformation.

Change management would have a role here too. It would be a supporting discipline, rather than a lesser preliminary stage replaced by transformation.

This comparison contains no recommendation to choose the second initiative. It could be unsuitable for this company. The example serves solely to distinguish the depth of change from support for change.

The working definitions above provide the following orientation. The formulations are our summary; their source references appear in the preceding sections.

SRC and the two perspectives on reorientation are explored in greater depth in the following chapters. They appear here so that their relationship is already visible. The order of the table implies neither a temporal sequence nor a hierarchy.

The definition attributed to Rafferty on the Leverage Experts website (Leverage Experts, n.d.) describes Situations of Rapid Change as those moments when the dynamics of a transformation exceed an organisation's capacity to adapt. It also mentions a deterioration in the economic situation.

For our analysis, this means that the scale of a restructuring alone does not justify an SRC diagnosis. Here, transformation describes the depth of change; SRC denotes a critical state in the relationship between demands and adaptive capacity. This distinction is our conceptual inference from the sources.

A far-reaching reorientation therefore need not begin only after a collapse. Conversely, severe strain does not establish that all of the company's underlying assumptions must be abandoned. It remains necessary to examine whether relief, capabilities, clearer decisions or other organisational conditions are needed first.

This work examines particularly critical change situations such as SRC. Its guiding question about responsible business leadership that is actually lived in practice also applies outside such situations. This does not imply a general mandate for radical change.

The question about objectives posed in the first chapter remains relevant after the terms have been clarified. Major change is not an end in itself. Examination may show that the existing orientation remains viable and a limited correction is enough. It may also reveal that the existing assumptions have themselves become an obstacle. These are different possible outcomes of our investigation.

Deliberately retaining something is not automatically fundamental reorientation. If both the underlying assumptions and practice remain unchanged, no fundamental change has been demonstrated. If, however, the way people understand responsibility, justify decisions and take in feedback changes, a substantial reorientation may occur even though, for example, the business model remains in place. Here too, the difference from the starting state and its persistence over time must be evidenced.

Fundamental reorientation is therefore not introduced later as an intensifying term for a particularly large transformation. Our working concept directs attention to the actual adoption of a fundamental reorientation and its embedding in practice. It deliberately overlaps with existing transformation research. It promises neither automatically better decisions nor economic success.

The next question is therefore: what happens when an organisation can no longer adequately perceive, assess and handle the changes it faces? This is where the closer examination of Rafferty's Situations of Rapid Change begins.