Change is inevitable.   Planned and managed with a clear objective based on reasonable benefit assumptions, change is good.  There are a lot of conditions that needto be satisfied to ensure change is good, but the results make it worth the effort.

Sometimes conditions create the need for a change. For example someone leaves an organization or team.  At a minimum their replacement will be a change, but a reorganization or other restructuring are opportunities that could also result.

The pace of the change

For todays post we assume a good change is in process.  The objective and most beneficial change actions have determined and a approach is planned.  That is the work (e.,g., communication, implementation) activities are defined.

Should this change proceed slowly or rapidly?  Is there an optimal type of approach to change scheduling.  Should we push it through quickly to reduce the anxiety of affected stakeholders or will slow and cautious lead to a higher quality result?

Both approaches have benefits and pitfalls and these can vary depending on the specifics of the change.  Sometimes there are constraints that drive a slow or fast approach (e.g., things are bad and need to improve fast or the culture mandates a slow and discursive approach so you have limited choice of pace.

Most importantly, when determining the schedule for your change (i.e., the timing of the implementation activities) be sure to consider the associated risks and plan mitigation activities. This applies whether a fast or slow paced change.

For example if the pace of change could lead to team demorialization or mass exodus consider this risk and plan what to do if it occurs.