Budget Cut Mid-Implementation
A state human services agency is implementing a new case management system for 1,200 employees across 12 regional offices. Midway through the project, the legislature cuts the implementation budget by 20 percent. The mandated scope is unchanged. Middle managers are skeptical; many have lived through three failed IT initiatives in eight years. Frontline social workers carry high caseloads and say they have no bandwidth for training. The union contract requires training during paid work hours. The vendor still expects go-live in four months. The executive sponsor is a deputy director with limited authority over regional offices. Communication has consisted of monthly email updates from the project office. No resistance plan exists. The project has a change lead but no dedicated training team, and the vendor's plan assumes super-users will train peers.
1. With a 20 percent budget cut and unchanged scope, how would you re-plan the change management approach without sacrificing adoption?
Read the worked answer
Protect adoption by reallocating change effort, not by deleting it. Cut low-yield outputs such as monthly email updates and large town halls, and shift to manager-led conversations and peer super-users. Use risk-based segmentation: regional offices with the highest caseloads and lowest readiness get hands-on support; lower-risk offices get digital tools and a help desk. Because the union requires paid-time training, negotiate a train-the-trainer model with super-users and shorter modules. Do not cut sponsor time or supervisor coaching. Re-sequence: pilot in two offices, then scale. Reasoning: budget cuts often hit training and communication first, which raises failure risk. The mandated scope is unchanged, so the only lever is how adoption is built. If the vendor's four-month go-live is fixed, negotiate a phased rollout rather than a big bang. Document trade-offs for the sponsor: which offices get less support and what risk that creates. This is a judgment about protecting the critical path, not about spending equally.
2. The sponsor is a deputy director with limited authority over regional offices. What should the sponsor do, and what should you ask of the executive director?
Read the worked answer
The deputy can convene but cannot enforce across regional offices. Ask the executive director to issue a clear mandate and chair a monthly readiness review with regional directors. The deputy should own the change plan and escalate blockers. Build a sponsor coalition: regional directors, the union representative, and the CIO. Because middle managers are skeptical, give them real decisions, such as pilot site selection and training scheduling, and equip them with caseload data. Reasoning: sponsor effectiveness is active participation and perceived commitment, not title. A deputy with limited authority needs explicit backing, not more slide decks. If the executive director will not engage, the risk is a paper mandate; escalate with readiness evidence. Also, the monthly email is not communication; it is broadcasting. Replace it with two-way sessions where managers can surface constraints.