Framework 100 Callaghan Innovation Change Framework (He Rangi Hou Kei Tui or new horizon - new day)


This framework is an example of an organisation (Callaghan Innovation) developing its own framework (including naming it) to suit its unique situation (including the start of the COVID-19 shutdowns in New Zealand (NZ) in early 2020).

Callaghan Innovation is a NZ government identity with the task of making NZ business more innovative. It has been in existence, under different names, for around 4 decades.

It was decided to bring 2 separate offices in Auckland (NZ) into one office space. The separate offices had different cultures, ie one office was a group of scientists and engineers; the other group was a commercial unit. There were 2 distinct cultures as shown by different office layouts, ie open v closed. Even though staff lived in the same city, some had never met their colleagues in the other office, ie were not familiar with each other's work.

Of approximately 500 staff in the organisation, around 70 were change agents (with a hard core of around 10) that grew over time to around 150. They were important in facilitating conversations around the organisation about their experiences, eg lessons learnt, and co-creating the change (including a new way of working). These change agents needed to be encourage to continually improve their capabilities, etc and to be supported in their endeavours. This helps keep the change momentum going, eg getting buy-in from the staff. But, staff also need to learn to handle ambiguity and uncertainty as this is part of the change process by using case studies to highlight use of tools etc.

The staff were disgruntled as previous changes initiatives had left them disillusioned; they certainly didn't have ownership of them. To help encourage future ownership, the new change framework was named after the organisation. In addition to ownership, it made staff accountable for its performance.

Also, the background maturity of the staff in change was regarded as low, (eg lack of understanding of the difference between project management and change management, staff had to learn to get comfortable with the change, ie it as a learning journey.

Some external consultants (on-brand partners) were engaged to work with staff in the Auckland office, and an outside change practitioner was employed who stress the need to develop their own framework as previously imported change concepts had not been successful.

The change process started before Covid-19's impact occurred.

Below is the details of the framework they developed for their particular need and moment in time.

It was neither a top-down nor bottom-up thrust; it was called a through approach, ie involves people at all levels (including pessimists to optimists). Everybody was encouraged to have their say.

It builds on the Managing Successful Programs (MSP) methodology to reflect the uniqueness of Callaghan's situation.

The development of the change framework, with its tool kit, has helped people in the organisation to understand change, ie what is involved, etc; provided structure; it helped the staff become aligned; developed the same language around change. The framework has also, importantly, helped them to implement meaningful change.


1. Starting Point, ie engagement approach






The initial focus was at the individual level, ie handling people's anxieties. There was also an explicit desire to lift the level of the conversations to understanding the connection of the vision, strategy, etc and to use an office disruption as the vehicle to shift the culture.

The key cultural shift was around increasing collaboration, which set a new benchmark for the organisation whose main base is in another city (Wellington). This would allow processes etc to be more readily reviewed.

2. The below diagram shows the framework for organisational-wide change that was developed out of the engagement approach, ie seeking new horizons (leaving the old baggage behind) and developing collaboration between different working groups. It is more about realising change was needed than executing.





Under the plan, prepare, deliver and sustain are a series of initiatives.

Parts of the framework, like In-depth, ChangeEasy and New Ways, was added later, especially with the Covid-19 impact.

An important element is the 'guard rails', ie engage (level of collaboration) and learn ('trial and error', ie build on things that are working well and modify or scrap things that are not working well - includes learning from the past). The guardrails are attached to the framework.






3. Putting pts 1 & 2 together




4. Encouraging conversations (eg learning from the Covid -19 lockdown in NZ, ie flexible working arrangements including locations, time, etc)




5. Some tools (20+)




6. Then they focused on confidence in leadership and refining the framework




7. Change Agent Focus





8. Measuring (some metrics were measured - some continuously and others at regular intervals, eg quarterly; in addition to project specific measurements there were organisational ones around culture, capability, innovation, etc; need to understand the benefit realisation)

8.1 Questionnaire




8.2 Measuring collaboration (including connecting, contributing, co-operating, co-creating & building a cohesive team)




 8.3 Change Momentum (conducted quarterly)





8.4 Sensemaking





i) There are a number of sub-elements under each of the main headings; eg for cultural attributes index, some of the elements were customer focus, degree of collaboration, amount of agility, learning capacity, etc

In summary, the modified developed framework was





(sources: Wikipedia, 2020; CMI, 2020; ; )


Search For Answers

designed by: bluetinweb

We use cookies to provide you with a better service.
By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies as set in our policy. I understand