Most change programs design one intervention and hope it's enough..
However, behavior rarely changes by addressing only one thing.. you need to look at what's actually driving the behavior and design for each barrier separately.
When we do this work with clients we look at three areas:
-Can people actually do what you're asking -Does the environment support it -Is there a reason to do it
Each of those areas needs a different kind of response.. a capability gap needs something different from an environment problem and both need something different from a motivation issue.
Most change programs treat them all the same way though, which is why the default response seems to be training or comms.
What's useful about mapping it out this way, once you can see which barriers sit where, you can also see who owns each one.
Some interventions are aimed at the individual, think of building awareness, developing skills, or how people think about the change.
Some are aimed at the people around them.. managers, team leads, the social environment that shapes what's normal.
Some are aimed at the system itself.. the policies, incentives, tools and structures that make certain behaviors easier or harder.
When you lay this out for stakeholders it does two things, one the one hand it shows them that the response is designed around the actual problem, not a guess. On the other it makes ownership clear.. because different parts of the response sit with different people.
The learning team owns some of it, the process owner owns some, IT owns some, leadership owns some.
That clarity is what most change programs lack, everyone agrees we need to change behavior but nobody can point to which specific barriers they're addressing and who is responsible for each one.
When you can show that.. the conversation changes.