The following questions support a discussion; they constitute neither an SRC test nor a test of fundamental reorientation. Their sequence is not normatively prescribed.
What concrete outcome do we want to achieve for customers, employees and owners, and what conflict between goals remains?
What would deteriorate if we deliberately changed nothing fundamental?
Which measures would already work with better resources, expertise or clearer responsibilities?
Which change tasks place demands on the same key people as day-to-day operations, and which obligation is actually removed in return?
In which three significant decisions were information, alternatives, counterarguments and responsibilities most recently handled in a traceable way?
Which underlying assumption have we so far taken for granted, even though we know of counterexamples?
Which previous rule must lose its guiding function, and which important protective function should we explicitly retain?
Who can provide a reasoned justification for the proposed reorientation, who rejects it for good reasons, and which interests conflict?
Which capabilities, decision-making latitude, resources and incentives are missing, even if everyone involved understands the proposal?
How would an outsider recognise that the new rule really applies in the next difficult decision?
When, and on the basis of which predetermined observations, will we review implementation, goal attainment, risks and side effects?
What observation would cause us to reject the explanation we have chosen or stop the path of change?
Appendix A. Analytical comparison matrix
This matrix is the author's own synthesis of the scholarly argument and is not a psychometrically validated scale.
| Dimension to examine | If this is the only observation available | Necessary counterquestion and suitable evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of change | A major IT project or a new structure has been announced. | Which specific activity, rule or capability actually changes? |
| Capacity to steer | Decisions are delayed or resources are insufficient. | Is the bottleneck part of a critical change context, or do capacity, risk and rights explain the case more simply? |
| Change in underlying assumptions | New guiding concepts are used publicly. | Which previous assumption loses its guiding function, and which decision reveals this? |
| Personal and collective adoption | Many people have agreed. | How do those involved justify decisions without constant direction, and which legitimate dissenting voices remain? |
| Institutional embedding | A new set of rules has been adopted. | Are decision rights, resources and incentives actually used differently in everyday practice? |
| Persistence over time | A successful kick-off has taken place. | Does the new practice recur after months, even without intensive external steering? |
| Goal attainment and side effects | A measure has been introduced on time. | Has the previously defined business goal been achieved, and what disadvantages have arisen? |
| Alternative explanations | The transformation has been described as «successful». | Are selection, a change of leadership, new resources or changed demand already sufficient as an explanation? |