There are two ways to work with me:
Since December 2025, every Australian jurisdiction requires employers to identify, assess and control psychosocial hazards at work, and poorly managed organisational change is a named hazard. That makes the people side of your go-live something you are required to manage, and independent change support helps you show the steps you took.
Three months of value in three weeks. You get the whole change picture: who is affected, what changes for them, which roles need training and what still has to be decided, in your branding and ready for your steering committee. It takes six hours of your team’s time, at a fixed price with nothing to scope.
Ideal for: CIOs and senior leaders with a system going live who would like senior change thinking on it without hiring a change manager.
On one national rollout the project had 350 people in scope, and when I started talking to stakeholders I found 700 people used that system. That is 350 people whose work would have stopped.
Senior change leadership embedded in your project on a flexible, part-time basis.
Ideal for: Organisations mid-rollout who need senior change leadership without a full-time hire, project sponsors who can see the people side is at risk, and leaders rolling out AI who want their people using it.
Independent from your tech provider, trusted by your exec team, and focused on the one thing that determines whether your rollout lands: your people. I use my own AI powered toolkit so you get insights faster.
Every engagement follows my five step change methodology, built across 20 years and 50+ technology projects: vision and success criteria, deep-dive analysis, planning, change networks, and adoption.
Flexible part-time basis. Remote or on-site. Typically 3–9 months, scoped to your project timeline. More cost-effective than a full-time hire for projects under 12 months.
Scoped to your project, contact for a quoteYes. A project manager manages scope, budget and timeline. A change manager manages people’s readiness to adopt what the project delivers. Both are needed, and they are solving different problems. A project that is on time and on budget still fails if people do not use the system.
Prosci’s benchmarking research found that 88% of projects with excellent change management met or exceeded their objectives, against 13% of those where it was done poorly. Organisations keep investing in better project management without investing in the people side, and those are separate disciplines.
The Change Starter Pack is fixed at $7,500 + GST. Fractional engagements are scoped per project, and most run 3 to 9 months at one or two days per week. For organisations under 12 months from go-live, fractional support is almost always more cost-effective than a full-time hire.
The best starting point is a call. Scope and budget usually become clear quickly.
Yes, and this is often the most effective model. Tech providers handle the system configuration, integration and technical training. I handle the people side: resistance, readiness, communications and adoption. The two roles are complementary, not overlapping.
Many technology providers bring me in specifically because their clients need human-side support that goes beyond what the provider is scoped to deliver. If you are a tech provider whose clients are struggling with adoption, get in touch.
No. Post go-live resistance and low adoption are common, and fixable. The key is understanding what is actually blocking adoption, which is usually not what people say it is, and then addressing it with the right intervention.
The earlier you act the better, but too late would mean the organisation has already written off the investment. Most haven’t.
That’s often the best time to bring in independent change support. Resistance always has a root cause, and it’s usually fixable once you name it directly. The most common causes are insufficient certainty about what’s changing, no perceived voice in the process, and fear about job impact that nobody’s addressed head-on.
An independent change manager can say things that project sponsors and line managers can’t, because they’re not inside the power dynamic. That independence is often what breaks a logjam.
The psychology is the same. What’s different is the specific resistance patterns that AI triggers, particularly around job security, identity and trust in the technology. People aren’t just learning a new system. They’re wondering whether the technology is going to replace them, and nobody is addressing that directly.
The messaging that works for a Salesforce rollout will not work for an AI rollout. AI literacy needs to be human-centred, not technical. The change strategy needs to actively address the job security signal before it becomes blanket resistance.