Evaluating Change Management Impact On Product Success

Most product teams celebrate the product launch. They shouldn't. Here’s what usually happens: A team ships a shiny new feature. They high-five. Then sprint straight into building the next one. But features don’t create value just by existing. That’s exactly what happened on a team I worked with years ago. We launched a brand new feature that we thought everyone would love — a huge engineering effort. But weeks later, sales didn’t pitch it. Support didn’t know how to explain it. And users? Confused, or unaware it even existed. We built it. But it never landed. And here's why: 🎯 Real impact happens after the launch. If you’re not enabling GTM teams to sell it… If you’re not helping support teams explain it… If you’re not learning what’s working and what’s not… You’re not done. You’re just getting started. The shift? From: "We shipped it—what’s next?" To: "We shipped it—how do we make it stick?" Here’s how: ✅ Empower internal teams -> Arm GTM with positioning, use cases, and objection handling -> Run enablement sessions with real customer scenarios- > Provide internal FAQs and demo scripts that evolve with feedback ✅ Track adoption and feedback -> Track the key metrics that matter -> Capture qualitative insights from sales calls and support tickets -> Segment feedback by persona to uncover hidden blockers ✅ Reinvest—or ruthlessly cut what’s not working -> Double down on features driving real outcomes -> Sunset or simplify features that confuse or underdeliver -> Use a “feature scorecard” to guide resource allocation Final thought: Launch is step 1. Stickiness is the real finish line. -- 👋 I’m Ron Yang, a product leader and advisor. Follow me for insights on product leadership + strategy.

"You can’t manage what you don’t measure." Yet, when it comes to change management, most leaders focus on what was implemented rather than what actually changed. Early in my career, I rolled out a company-wide process improvement initiative. On paper, everything looked great - we met deadlines, trained employees, and ticked every box. But six months later, nothing had actually changed. The old ways crept back, employees reverted to previous habits, and leadership questioned why results didn’t match expectations. The problem? We measured completion, not adoption. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻: Many organizations struggle to gauge whether change efforts truly make an impact because they rely on surface-level indicators: → Completion rates instead of adoption rates → Project timelines instead of performance improvements → Implementation checklists instead of employee sentiment This approach creates a dangerous illusion of progress while real behaviors remain unchanged. 𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲: Why does this happen? Because leaders focus on execution instead of outcomes. Common pitfalls include: → Lack of accountability – No one tracks whether new processes are being followed. → Insufficient feedback loops – Employees don’t have a voice in measuring what works. → Over-reliance on compliance – Just because something is mandatory doesn’t mean it’s effective. If we want real, measurable change, we need to rethink what success looks like. 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲: The solution? Focus on three key change management success metrics: → 𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗲 – How many employees are actively using the new system or process? → 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 – How has efficiency, quality, or productivity changed? → 𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 – Do employees feel the change has made their work easier or harder? By shifting from "Did we implement the change?" to "Is the change delivering results?", we turn short-term projects into long-term transformation. 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀: Organizations that measure change effectively see: → Higher engagement – Employees feel heard, leading to stronger buy-in. → Stronger accountability – Leaders track impact, not just completion. → Sustained improvement – Change becomes embedded in the culture, not just a temporary initiative. "Change isn’t a box to check—it’s a shift to sustain. Measure adoption, not just action, and you’ll see the impact last." How does your organization measure the success of change initiatives? If you’ve used adoption rate, performance impact, or user satisfaction, which one made the biggest difference for you? Wishing you a productive, insightful, and rewarding Tuesday! Chris Clevenger #ChangeManagement #Leadership #ContinuousImprovement #Innovation #Accountability

Product launches in the startup world notoriously fail to achieve sustained usage, not because of flawed technology, but due to a fundamental misdefinition of 'delivery.' I’ve observed too many teams, with immense talent, celebrating code shipped—the MVP is out!—only to be blindsided by anemic adoption rates just weeks later. This exact scenario played out in a previous venture where we pushed a highly polished feature. Our internal metrics were green, every bug squashed. Yet, after 90 days, only 18% of target users integrated it into their daily workflow. The core issue? We optimized for 'go-live' rather than 'behavioral change,' mistaking shipping for user adoption. The critical insight isn't about better features, but about creating continuous systems focused on user behavior adoption. This requires a dedicated 'adoption loop' framework: not sequential handoffs, but deeply integrated cross-functional teams aligned on one single adoption metric. The tactical implementation involves daily huddles where the team doesn't just discuss bugs, but user friction points, workarounds, and how new habits can be facilitated. This shifts 'work' from building code to actively facilitating behavioral change. The non-obvious connection? Sustained product growth maps less to a linear development process and more to a perpetual cycle of anthropological study combined with agile execution. Considering this, what's a specific internal metric or team structure you’ve found most effective in measuring and driving true user adoption post-launch, beyond just initial engagement?