Most transformation programmes fail in a dimension nobody assessed. TCM assesses 41 of them, each with its own maturity model, and maps over 300 standards, frameworks and methods onto the ones that actually apply to you. Two gap analyses decide the work: horizontal picks the dimensions, vertical sets how far you have to travel in each.
The one-week engagement. TCM Gap Analysis Transformation Readiness Assessment + relevant AI Audit — including relevant d‑Employee customisation readiness and the audit processes you will be required to run.
Five days, on site or virtual, with your people. €2,500. Onsite in Ireland +€1,500, virtual anywhere. 50% back if you do not get at least three concrete, actionable findings. Credited in full against a transformation programme with us.
Total Change Management integrates BPM, ITIL, PPM, MSP, AI, computational and neuro-cognitive study of the brain, the Artificial Brain for Management, cloud computing, BI, BPR, EFQM, CMMI, ITSM, BPMS, ERP, EAI, the Balanced Scorecard, organisational psychology, crowd sourcing and collective intelligence into one architecture. It is structured in three parts.
Over a hundred maturity models, TCM’s own alongside the best established ones from elsewhere, culminating in a Total Organizational Maturity Model (TOMM). For each dimension we choose and customise one model — a TCM model or a recognised external one, whichever fits the client — and that choice is itself part of the analysis.
More than 130 major rules to implement so that progress actually happens against those models. A rule can contribute to more than one dimension, with one dimension as its default home.
A process map of more than 50 sub-processes, customised to the change case in front of you. The framework is not a slide; it is a runnable process.
Every dimension belongs to one of three families, each with its own professional community — people (ACMP), process (Axelos, PMI) and technology (IEEE, ACM, Axelos). The register below is grouped that way.
These are the two questions a transformation has to answer before anyone spends money, and most programmes answer neither explicitly.
Across all 41 dimensions, which ones actually matter for this organisation, in this industry, at this moment — and inside each one, which standards, frameworks and methods are the right instruments to use.
It is as much about what we rule out. A dimension named as out of scope, with the reason written down, is a decision you can defend later.
Output: a weighted shortlist of dimensions, each with its selected practices and the reason it was chosen.
Inside a selected dimension: what maturity level is the organisation at today, what level is the right target — not automatically the top — and which best practices, frameworks and methods carry it from one to the other.
Every maturity model carries four to nine levels, several hundred in total across the register. For each selected dimension we pick and customise the model — TCM’s own or a recognised external one. The target level is then chosen, argued and costed: not automatically the top one, and never assumed.
Output: current level, target level, the practices that close the distance, and what it costs.
Maturity models are used in three modes. Descriptive establishes the as-is. Prescriptive adds the rules and criteria that make the to-be happen, which is what completes the gap analysis. Comparative adds benchmarking across industries and regions. All three are in scope during the week.
Grouped by the three TCM hyper-dimensions. The chips are the instruments — standards, frameworks and methods — that the vertical gap analysis selects from once a dimension has fired.
Whether the change is actually absorbed by the people who have to live with it — resistance, readiness, reinforcement.
How the organisation actually behaves under pressure, as distinct from how the org chart says it behaves.
Who decides, who sponsors, who is accountable when a change stalls, and how that is evidenced.
The behaviours that are rewarded in practice, and the distance between the stated values and those behaviours.
Whether the people asked to run the new way of working can actually run it, and how that is proven.
Resourcing, succession, retention and the reporting of human capital as a measurable asset.
Who is told what, when, through which channel, and how you know it landed.
The human cost of the operating model, and the ethical limits placed on what the organisation will do.
How teams are shaped around the work, their cognitive load, and the interfaces between them.
Using many minds deliberately rather than accidentally — where judgement is pooled and how it is weighted.
Whether the organisation can draw on the full range of talent available to it, measurably.
How work actually flows end to end — volumes, handoffs, rework, the steps nobody documented — and deciding when a process should be improved and when it should be abolished and rebuilt.
Delivery of discrete, bounded change with a defined start, end and acceptance.
Coordinating related projects so they add up to a business outcome rather than a pile of outputs.
Choosing what to do at all, and stopping what should stop.
Conformance, defect prevention and the cost of poor quality.
Naming what can go wrong, sizing it, owning it, and reviewing it on a cadence.
The control environment: who signs, what evidence exists, and what an auditor would find.
Turning intent into measurable objectives, and knowing when the strategy is not working.
The money case: cost, benefit, timing, and whether the benefit was ever actually banked.
The obligations that are not optional, and the evidence that they are met.
How the organisation learns what its customers actually experience, and acts on it.
Dependency on others: terms, concentration, resilience and ethical exposure.
Running a service rather than shipping a project — incidents, changes, service levels.
Throughput, constraint, flow efficiency and waste in the day-to-day running of the business.
Whether new ideas have a route from someone’s head into the operating model.
Environmental and social performance as a reported, audited obligation.
What happens when something breaks, and how quickly the organisation is standing again.
Whether anything is actually being measured, and whether the measures drive the right behaviour.
Whether what the organisation knows survives the people who know it. TCM names this one of the three that matter most in almost every medium or large organisation.
Descriptive, predictive and prescriptive analysis — and whether decisions actually change because of it.
Ownership, lineage, definitions and fitness for purpose of the data everything else rests on.
AI as a governed capability: risk classification, human oversight, logging, and defensibility to a regulator.
Whether the shape of the estate supports the strategy or fights it.
The engineering discipline behind anything the organisation builds or has built for it.
Where things run, what that costs, and what happens when the provider has a bad day.
Confidentiality, integrity, availability — and the personal data obligations that sit on top.
The application estate and the seams between systems, which is where silent failure lives.
Work moved from people to machines, physical or software, and the oversight that has to come with it.
How software-shaped change is actually delivered and how fast the loop closes.
TCM’s own frontier: decision support that reasons over the maturity models rather than merely reporting them.
TCM’s published core is over thirty progress dimensions, each with its own maturity model. The register above is how those land in practice, at the level of detail a client engagement actually works at. The dimension set is reviewed against the published models before each assessment.
Knowledge Management and Process Management move together. So do Analytics and almost everything else. TCM records those relationships in a Dimensions Relationship Matrix, so your assessment reads the organisation as it actually is — connected — rather than as a list of independent boxes.
One change, several returns. A single progress rule can lift maturity in more than one dimension at once, and the matrix is how we find those — a tighter document lifecycle that also improves process compliance, an ownership model that also closes a data-quality gap. In most programmes the best-value moves are the ones sitting on an intersection.
It also means the overall maturity picture holds up. Where two dimensions share ground, that is recorded rather than assumed away, so the number you take to a board is one you can defend line by line.
Which intersections matter for you is established during the assessment. TCM’s own field experience is that Knowledge Management, Analytics and Process Management matter in most medium and large organisations — a starting point, not a substitute for looking at yours.
The matrix is not a scoring device. It shows where a decision in one dimension carries into another — which is where the leverage is, and where two owners usually need to agree something before either can move.
| Component | What it is | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| TCM horizontal gap analysis | Which of the 41 dimensions fire for you, weighted, with the ones ruled out named and explained. | A weighted dimension shortlist with selected practices per dimension |
| TCM vertical gap analysis | Current and target maturity in each selected dimension, and the practices that close the distance. | Current level, target level, route, cost |
| Transformation readiness assessment | Whether the organisation can absorb the change at all — data, systems, skills, governance, appetite. | A readiness score against a published framework, with gaps named rather than softened |
| Relevant AI audit | Where AI genuinely creates value, where the risk sits, and what the obligations are. | An opportunity map and an EU AI Act position |
| d‑Employee customisation readiness | Whether a role in your organisation is a candidate for a customised d‑Employee, and what would have to be true first. | A go / not-yet per candidate role, with the reason |
| Required audit processes | The oversight and record-keeping you will have to run, in EU AI Act shape. | The processes named, with owners and cadence |
| The plan | Costed, owned, dated. | A costed 3 to 36 months plan you could execute with a good team of experts |
Most of what a week like this finds is not AI at all. It is process, structure, measurement and supplier terms — and we will say so plainly rather than steer you toward a purchase.
Including relevant d‑Employee customisation readiness and the required audit processes. Five days, on site or virtual, with your people. You leave with a costed 3 to 36 months plan you could execute with a good team of experts.