Change Programme Stalls at a Utility
Brantwood Water, a regulated utility with 3,200 employees, launched a 'Customer First' change programme 18 months ago. It aimed to cut complaint resolution time from 20 days to 5 and to move from a functional structure to end-to-end customer journey teams. Progress is poor: resolution time is 14 days, only four of twelve journey teams are operating, and the two largest unions have instructed members to work to rule over changes to shift patterns. Middle managers report confusion about who owns decisions, as functional heads retain budget authority while journey leads hold accountability. A staff survey shows 31% understand why the change is happening, down from 58% at launch. The regulator has opened a query into complaint handling. The CEO wants to 'accelerate' by appointing a transformation director and increasing communication.
1. Diagnose why the change programme is stalling, using evidence from the case.
Read the worked answer
The symptoms point to structural and political causes, not communication failure. The decisive evidence is the split between accountability and budget authority: journey leads are accountable for outcomes but functional heads control resources. This is a classic matrix conflict, and it guarantees that journey teams cannot deliver, which explains why only four of twelve operate. Middle managers are not confused; they are responding rationally to a structure that gives them two masters.
The union dispute over shift patterns is a separate but compounding failure: the programme changed terms and conditions without securing industrial consent, and work to rule directly slows complaint resolution. The collapse in understanding from 58% to 31% suggests the vision was communicated once at launch and never reinforced, but communication alone cannot fix a structural contradiction. The regulator's query raises the stakes and shortens the timetable. Appointing a transformation director without resolving the authority question would add a third voice and deepen confusion. The programme is stalled because the operating model was announced before it was designed, and because employee and union stakeholders were treated as recipients rather than parties to the change.
2. Recommend a sequenced intervention plan for the CEO, justifying the order of actions.
Read the worked answer
Sequence matters because actions that appear urgent can entrench the problem. First, resolve the authority question: the CEO should decide, and publish, whether journey leads control devolved budgets and headcount or whether functional heads become service providers to journeys. Without this, every other intervention is undermined. Second, engage the unions formally on shift patterns, using a joint working group with a defined scope and timetable, and consider pausing enforcement of contested changes to allow negotiation; work to rule will not lift otherwise.
Third, redesign the operating model properly, defining decision rights, handoffs and performance measures for journey teams, and pilot the remaining journeys rather than launching all eight at once. Fourth, rebuild the case for change with middle managers specifically, since they translate intent into daily behaviour, using evidence from early journey teams rather than corporate messaging. Fifth, appoint the transformation director only after the authority question is settled, with a mandate to coordinate rather than to substitute for line accountability. Sixth, establish a regulator-facing workstream to evidence complaint-handling improvement. This order addresses cause before symptom: structure and industrial relations first, capability and communication second, acceleration last.