When the System Is the Thing That Needs to Change

12/02/2026

The literature on systems change and implementation is vast, contradictory, and: if you are currently leading a transformation programme, which by the look of it, seems almost everyone in Wellington, almost certainly you are wondering what you need to know. This post offers a way through: a curated guide to the research and practitioner frameworks that are genuinely worth your time, organised around the questions that matter most when the system itself is being transformed while being asked to deliver business as usual.

If you are reading this, the chances are you are somewhere in the middle of something large and unwieldy. A restructure, perhaps. A machinery of government change. A transformation programme that began with a compelling case for change and has since acquired the gravitational pull of a small planet: it will be complete with steering groups, weekly reports, ministerial interest, programme boards, talent mapping and a change management workstream that is itself in need of change management.

The difficulty with large-scale systems change is not that we lack ideas about how to do it. Quite the opposite. The academic literature runs to thousands of papers across implementation science, complexity theory, organisational studies, and public administration. The consulting firms have their proprietary methodologies. Government innovation units have their toolkits. And yet the gap between what we know about systems change in the abstract and what we manage to accomplish in practice remains stubbornly wide. The question is why, and what, if anything, the literature can tell us about closing that distance.

What follows is an attempt to make sense of the most useful contributions, drawn from both peer-reviewed research and practitioner frameworks. Three arguments thread through the collection.

First, that the search for a universal model of change is itself part of the problem; the evidence points consistently towards contextual adaptation rather than methodological fidelity. I call this the Just-Do-It approach to change. You will figure it out once you get started.

Second, that the convergence of systems thinking and implementation science represents one of the more productive intellectual developments in this space: giving us, for the first time, both the conceptual vocabulary to see whole systems and the practical tools to intervene in them.

And third, that public sector transformation is genuinely different from its private sector counterpart, in ways that generic frameworks tend to obscure, and that taking those differences seriously is a precondition for taking the work seriously at all.

With that in mind, what follows, is not another framework, but a reading list: a deliberately curated collection of research and practitioner literature for those who find themselves responsible for making large systems work differently. It is partial, as all such lists must be. But the sources here have been chosen because they do something useful: they help you think more carefully about what you are already doing. They give you something to push against so you know you are on the right track.

The foundational problem

The literature on systems change is vast, and much of it suffers from a difficulty that Phillips and Klein (2022) identify rather neatly in their review of sixteen change management models. There is, they observe, no universal approach. Change managers face uncertainties that cannot be addressed by planned sequences alone. This is both obvious and routinely ignored: particularly in the public sector, where the temptation to procure a methodology and then follow it like a recipe remains remarkably durable.

Phillips and Klein’s work bridges the gap between what academics study and what practitioners actually do. They review a wide range of change management models and find that most are saying roughly the same things in different languages: communication matters, stakeholder involvement is key, culture is built and rebuilt, and vision alignment has recur across all of them. The value, they offer, is less in choosing the right model than in understanding why certain things keep recurring, and prepare yourself to keep addressing them mid-flight.

Clarke and Crane (2018) take their analysis in a different direction, examining how cross-sector partnerships between public, private, and civil society actors can drive systemic change. Their central argument, that complex social and environmental problems are simply too large for any single organisation or sector to address alone, will surprise nobody who has worked across government agencies on a shared problem. What is more useful is their framework for understanding the interactions between actors, partnerships, and the issues themselves. If you are working in a space where multiple organisations must move together, this is essential reading. The insight is in how to manage the key actors and their issues.

Systems thinking meets implementation science

One of the more productive developments in recent years has been the convergence of systems thinking and implementation science: two traditions that have, for too long, talked past each other.

Moullin and colleagues (2015) produced a systematic review that remains genuinely useful, developing a Generic Implementation Framework that identifies core concepts spanning multiple disciplines: the process of implementation, the innovation being implemented, the context in which it occurs, and the influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations that shape outcomes. It is one of those rare pieces of work that is both conceptually rigorous and practically applicable. I recommend it.

Whelan and colleagues (2023) have since synthesised the literature on combining systems thinking approaches with implementation science, and the integration is illuminating. Systems thinking gives you the capacity to see how different parts of a system relate to one another; implementation science gives you the tools to act on that understanding. Neither is sufficient alone.

For those who want the deeper theoretical foundations, the work on complexity science and implementation science is worth the investment. Large-scale systems change does not behave like a organised programme, let alone a project, however much we might wish it to. Understanding why, and what follows from that understanding, changes how you design and lead transformation work at portfolio and institutional level.

The practitioner frameworks

I am sometimes asked whether the big consulting firm methodologies are worth reading. The answer is a qualified yes, provided you read them as what they are: distillations of pattern recognition from large datasets of client engagements, rather than theoretical contributions.

McKinsey’s 2015 work on the science of organisational transformations, based on their Global Survey research, identifies four actions that drive changes in mindsets and behaviours: role modelling, fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing changes through formal mechanisms, and developing talent and skills. The striking finding is that transformations using all four actions are nearly eight times more likely to succeed than those relying on just one. This is not a subtle result. It is worth a look.

BCG’s Three Peaks Framework is specifically designed for the public sector, and it deserves attention for that reason alone. The framework recognises what many generic models do not: that public sector organisations serve multiple masters with diverse and sometimes conflicting goals, and that legitimacy requirements are fundamentally different from those in the private sector. The three peaks of Vision, Design, and Delivery are conceived not as linear stages but as adaptive and iterative, with feedback loops running throughout. This is closer to how public sector transformation actually works, even if the language remains rather tidy. I’ll be honest, I use this in my infrastructure assurance review assessements. It’s relabile and speaks to the dynamic nature of change and implementation, and what I have been developing in my Te Rā series on the “implemention hinge”.

Kotter’s 8-Step Process, now evolved into the 8 Accelerators, remains the most widely adopted change management framework globally. Its durability says something. Whether it says something about the model’s quality or about the profession’s conservatism is a question I leave to the reader. I used when I led my first big operational footprint restructure thirty years: it’s essential and easy tool to use. A good place to start if you are doing a restructure for the first time and your HR/OD team are flooded with other demands.

The public sector specifically

For those working in the heart of government, the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation provides some of the most thoughtful guidance available. Their systems change resources outline eight tactics: people and place, dwelling, connecting, framing, designing, prototyping, stewarding, and evaluating. They are refreshingly honest about the necessary preconditions for success. Systems change, they note, is most successful when there is genuine understanding that problems cannot be solved by traditional means, and when there is top-level permission, resources, and leadership support. The absence of any one of these conditions is usually sufficient to explain why a transformation programme is struggling.

The literature on evaluating systemic change in public management deserves particular mention. Boston’s (2000) paper is added because it charts the problems we have with reform and change. Those of us who have actually worked within that system may have more complicated views on the matter, but the analytical framework is instructive.

What the literature agrees on

Across academic research and practitioner frameworks alike, several themes recur with sufficient consistency to be taken seriously.

Successful transformations use multiple strategies simultaneously rather than relying on single interventions. Diverse stakeholders must be genuinely involved, not merely consulted. Context matters enormously, and what works in one setting may not transfer to another. Systems thinking, which is the capacity to see interconnections rather than isolated causes, is essential. And implementation is not an afterthought but a discipline in its own right.

The literature also reveals important distinctions between public and private sector transformation that are too often glossed over. Public sector organisations face political dynamics and rapid changes in priorities. They must build legitimacy with both internal staff and the external public. They serve goals that are sometimes in genuine tension with one another. None of this makes transformation impossible, but it does make it different, and frameworks that ignore these differences are of limited use.

A final thought

Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline remains, after all these years, one of the most important books on organisational change. His central insight, that systems thinking is the discipline that integrates all the others, has lost none of its force. When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, Senge argued, organisations can create the possibility of genuine transformation.

Note the care in that sentence. Not the certainty of transformation. The possibility. Anyone who has led or lived through a major change programme will recognise the precision of that distinction.

Finally, if you cannot access any of the links below, let me know I will bring them together in a zip file. x

References and further reading

Peer-reviewed research

Phillips, J. & Klein, J.D. (2022). Change management: From theory to practice. PMC. Link

Clarke, A. & Crane, A. (2018). Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change. PMC. Link

Moullin, J.C. et al. (2015). Systematic review of implementation frameworks. PubMed. Link

Whelan, J. et al. (2023). Combining systems thinking approaches and implementation science. Health Policy and Systems. Link

When complexity science meets implementation science. BMC Medicine. Link

Putting the system back into systems change. ResearchGate. Link

Brown, R. (2023). A framework for creating systems change. ScholarWorks. Link

Fredberg, T. (2022). Organizational transformation: Handling the double-edged sword. Science Direct. Link

The challenge of evaluating systemic change: Public management reform. Science Direct. Link

A critical, integrative review on evaluating systems change and transformation. SAGE Journals. Link

Cerna, L. The nature of policy change and implementation: A review of different theoretical approaches. Link

Craike, M. et al. (2023). An initial, middle-range theory of public health research impact. Review of Policy Research. Link

A conceptual lean implementation framework based on change management theory. Science Direct. Link

Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation. Science Direct. Link

Senge, P.M. & Sterman, J.D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning. European Journal of Operational Research.

Practitioner frameworks and resources

McKinsey & Company (2015). The science of organizational transformations. Link

Boston Consulting Group (2018). Three Peaks Framework: Mastering transformation in the public sector. Link

Kotter Inc. 8-Step Process for Leading Change. Link

OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. Systems change. Link

Harvard Business School. Systems change in social entrepreneurship. Link

Partnership for Public Service. Seven strategies for effective government transformation. Link

Prosci. Change management in government. Link

Books

Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kotter, J.P. (2014). Accelerate. Harvard Business Review Press.