Rollback or Roll-forward

Traditionally, rollback has been the go-to method for addressing change implementation failures. This approach reverses each change process step to restore the system to its original state, ideally without any lingering effects from the failed change. Essentially, rollback aims to eliminate any adverse impacts that may have arisen during the experiment.

However, modern change management practices have shifted towards a more proactive strategy known as rolling forward. Instead of simply undoing changes, this approach focuses on creating and implementing new change sets on top of the current state. By doing so, organisations can adjust and enhance their processes toward successful outcomes without negating the efforts already made. This method encourages adding new steps and improvements rather than reverting to the previous state, facilitating a more adaptive and resilient change environment.

The transition from rollback to roll forward reflects a significant evolution in change management philosophy, emphasizing continuous improvement and adaptation rather than mere correction.

Risks with Roll-Forward

While the rolling forward change strategy offers numerous advantages, it is not without its risks. Here are some potential challenges associated with this approach:

1. Complexity and Overload: Adding new changes on top of existing ones can lead to increased complexity within the organisation. This can overwhelm employees, making it difficult to adapt to multiple changes simultaneously, potentially leading to confusion and decreased productivity (Kotter, 1996).

2. Resistance to Change: Even to improve the current state, stakeholders may resist new changes, particularly if they perceive that the existing changes were not fully implemented or accepted. This resistance can hinder the successful adoption of subsequent changes and create a cycle of disengagement among employees (Prosci, 2022).

3. Unintended Consequences: Rolling forward without adequately assessing the existing system can lead to unintended consequences. New changes might interact with existing processes in unforeseen ways, potentially creating new issues or exacerbating current ones. This could result in a cascading effect, where one change negatively impacts another (Hiatt, 2006).

4. Resource Strain: Implementing multiple changes at once can strain an organisation's human and financial resources. This may lead to employee burnout or insufficient support for change initiatives, ultimately affecting overall performance (Senge, 2006).

5. Lack of Clear Accountability: As multiple changes are introduced, it can become unclear who is responsible for the success or failure of specific initiatives. This diffusion of accountability can complicate oversight and management, making it difficult to track progress and results effectively (Kotter, 1996).