ChangeMaker® · Transformation platform
ChangeMaker works three levers to drive value creation:
how much, at what effort, when.
ChangeMaker makes operational value creation efficient and effective – and brings the impact into the P&L earlier. For owners, that means higher excess returns, less tied-up capacity, faster cash.
Make change. Not plans.
Why programs fail is rarely the plan – it is the execution.
~70 %
of all transformation programs miss their targets
>50 %
of value loss occurs in implementation & sustaining
12 %
sustain the gains for more than three years
Value is not lost in planning. It is lost in implementing and sustaining. That is exactly where the three levers work – and exactly where steering via Excel and PowerPoint breaks down.
Sources: Study E (~70 %, as an order of magnitude) · Study B (value loss by phase: 35 % implementation + 20 % after) · Study D (12 % sustainability beyond three years). Full citations in the endnotes.
Owner value is created when success factors take effect across as many participants as possible.
It is the success factors of successful transformations that create the value – but only when they take hold across the organization. The more participants experience them, the more disproportionately excess returns rise.
from ~7 % activated participation on, returns turn positive
Study A (n=60) · TRS = total return to shareholders · correlation, not a euro effect
+67 %
excess return when many carry real ownership
−18 %
at very low participation – the program destroys value
Source: Study A (2021, n=60, TRS curve). A correlation, not a promised return. Why the curve applies to ChangeMaker and not to Excel: the next two sections.
The 24 success factors converge into 7 experiences – Excel delivers none of them, ChangeMaker every one.
What people must experience for the factors to take effect – experience by experience, each with its evidence.
| Experience | Factors | Excel gap | ChangeMaker |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Belonging & recognized | 3× | No sense of community, no visible contribution. | Team workplace: every contribution visible & recognized. |
| 2Understanding the system | 6× | Numbers without context, no big picture. | Initiatives, KPIs and targets as one coherent whole. |
| 3Co-creating | 3× | Filling cells instead of shaping. | Built together in real time, visible to everyone. |
| 4Working in concert | 4× | Own and joint impact invisible. | Visualizes impact and interplay toward the goal. |
| 5Being efficient | 3× | No robust data source, version chaos. | Single source of truth, automated reporting. |
| 6Managing negative emotions | 3× | Nothing activates or justifies hope. | Shows everyone pulling along; nudges into action. |
| 7Being well led | 2× | Fosters neither competence nor goodwill. | Overview: praise informedly, give fair feedback. |
Shareholder return through broad engagement applies to ChangeMaker – not to Excel. Why?
A close look at the McKinsey study – what kind of participation drives TRS? So what must a tool be able to do?
What McKinsey actually measured
The sample consists exclusively of consultant-supported transformations. There, the consultants activate the workforce and create real ownership.
So the curve measures activated participation – not participation as such.
What ChangeMaker delivers
ChangeMaker achieves the same activation its own way: it arises not from external steering but from the system itself – per user, through the seven key experiences.
→ Detail in the previous section (the seven experiences).
What Excel does not deliver
Excel triggers none of these experiences. Without activation there is no effective participation – regardless of how many people enter data.
Excel participation never even lands on the curve.
The conclusion
With ChangeMaker, the effect grows with the number of users along the curve: few users, little impact; many users, full effect. With Excel, it would not materialize.
Source: Study A (2021, n=60). The interpretation follows from a close reading of the study's findings; the study itself is not a tool comparison.
What EBITDA effect can a tool deliver that activates the success factors of a transformation?
Choose the EBITDA of the company or the business unit undergoing the transformation – or revenue as a substitute. From that, the calculator derives the additional EBITDA contribution from the tool and its ratio to the total annual license. All assumptions are conservative, grounded in studies, and stated openly in the calculator.
The calculation in four steps
- Step 1If revenue is used instead of EBITDA, the calculator assumes an EBITDA margin of 10 %.
- Step 2Typical EBITDA targets of transformations range from 25 % to 75 % of prior-year EBITDA (Study C). The calculator conservatively sets one third – near the lower bound, and calculated on the target rather than the full potential.
- Step 3Programs that activate the success factors realize 67 % of their target instead of 37 % – 30 percentage points more than the rest (Study B).
- Step 4The larger the program, the more conservative the attribution: between 80 % (small programs) and one third (large programs) of this extra effect is attributed to the tool. The reason is the risk profile of large undertakings, not participation (Study F).
- EBITDA target of the transformationStep 2 · one third of EBITDA
- Annual EBITDA effect of the tool of EBITDA · steps 3–4
- EBITDA effect relative to the total annual license
The derived impact is an order of magnitude – it cannot, of course, be a result we guarantee. What is calculated is an annual EBITDA effect; there is no second extrapolation via company value. The total annual license runs in the background as a fixed frame per size class and is confirmed in an individual proposal. Full citations: appendix, section 21.
You just bring your program: we demo ChangeMaker on a closely comparable example and answer all open questions live.
Book a demoLess effort, targeted per stakeholder – one substantiated effect per group.
A large share of program work is "mechanics" – data upkeep, consolidation, reporting. ChangeMaker relieves each stakeholder group exactly where its effort arises.
Initiative teams
8 days
less work per initiative over the program's life
PMO / advisors / ops team
~85 %
less effort for consolidation and reporting
Senior management
~12 days
decision time recovered per executive and year
In the owner's currency: recovered capacity and faster decisions – value that arises at no additional cost.
Evidence: 8 days and ~85 % are experience values from ChangeMaker client programs (reporting and consolidation metrics), not study figures. ~12 days – derived from McKinsey "Three keys to faster, better decisions" (2019); full derivation in section 10. Separately, on the spreadsheet risk: around 88 % of operational spreadsheets contain errors (Panko, 2008).
Initiative teams: guided end-to-end – instead of fragmented across Excel, PowerPoint, chat and mail.
The workbench guides every team end-to-end and automates the "mechanics" – 8 days less work per initiative. Excel and PowerPoint in direct comparison:
| Aspect | In Excel & PowerPoint | With ChangeMaker |
|---|---|---|
| Guidance, workplace & feedback | Fragmented across the tool zoo: guidance in PowerPoint folders, work in Excel with version chaos, feedback via mail, Teams and meetings – constant searching, switching and compiling. | Everything in one place in the workbench – the team is taken by the hand and guided end-to-end to verified impact. |
| Ready-to-go team room | Blank sheet: no template, no best practice – every project rebuilds structure, fields and logic by hand, every time. | An optimized team room per project type – finished structure and milestones from day 1. |
| Status reporting | Compiled and formatted by hand before every committee – recurring night shifts, from scratch every time. | Generated automatically from ongoing upkeep – always current, no manual preparation. |
| Financial impact & KPIs | Calculated by hand, without plausibility checks – finding errors, correcting and recalculating costs time continuously. | Calculated automatically, with plausibility checks; ChangeBot delivers analyses on demand. |
| Existing data | The apparent advantage of "already there" tips into double upkeep – copy and paste, media breaks and constant reconciling of versions. | No disadvantage: the Excel add-in uploads data entered once automatically. |
Scales from 20 to 2,000 participants. Evidence: workbench, PerformanceMap®, standard templates, automated reporting, ChangeBot and Excel add-in; Panko (2008), around 88 % of operational spreadsheets contain errors.
PMO & advisors: data upkeep and consolidation – automated instead of until midnight.
Consolidation devours enormous time at the PMO or PE ops team – manual, error-prone, late at night. ChangeMaker automates it in real time: ~85 % less effort.
| Task | In Excel & PowerPoint | With ChangeMaker |
|---|---|---|
| Missing & wrong data | Chasing every team individually, questioning implausible values – endless mail loops. | Nudges & alerts remind automatically; only plausible entries are accepted. |
| Finding changed data | Who changed what, when? Cell-level detective work across versions. | Locking protects what is critical; snapshots & history show deviations instantly. |
| Repairing broken sheets | Shifted formulas, broken links, overwritten cells. | The input formats are indestructible – nothing breaks. |
| Consolidating across many sheets | Merged anew before every steering committee – highly fragile. | Consolidates automatically into one valid state – always current. |
| Data from other systems | Manual exports, imports, copy and paste, media breaks. | Stable integrations (Teams, Outlook, Power BI, Jira, API · 6,000 apps via Zapier/make.com/n8n) in real time. |
| Analyses & evaluations | By maturity level, site, function, per stakeholder – rebuilt every time, inconsistent. | Defined once, all analyses run automatically and consistently. |
Studies on operational spreadsheets: around 88 % contain errors (R. Panko, University of Hawaii, 2008).
Senior management: the right decision immediately – instead of waiting for information.
A large share of leadership time seeps away in inefficient decisions – mostly because the reliable information first has to be compiled. ChangeMaker delivers it instantly.
Decision latency – the hidden cost
Status quo – Excel & PowerPoint
Decisions wait for the next prepared report. Numbers are stale and inconsistent, follow-up questions cost days. The delay itself is the inefficiency.
With ChangeMaker
Exactly the right information – not too much, not too little – live at any time and self-explanatory. Independent drill-down in the PerformanceMap® to task level. The decision is made without waiting.
Less decision latency = faster, better-founded steering.
Derivation: McKinsey "Three keys to faster, better decisions" (De Smet/Jost/Weiss, May 2019, n>1,200) – 37 % of time spent on decisions, 58 % of it ineffective, × ~220 working days ≈ 47 days/year. Transformation share and instantly deliverable information conservatively ~½ each (information friction: ~20 % of working time spent searching for information, McKinsey Global Institute, 2012). Order of magnitude, not a promise.
Time recovered flows into steering and execution – efficiency feeds effectiveness and speed.
The three levers are not separate buckets. The efficiency lever frees up capacity – and that capacity is then available to create activated participation even in the more remote corners (more effectiveness) and a faster start (more speed).
Efficiency
saves time
- ~85 %less consolidation effort
- 8 daysless work per initiative
- ~12 daysdecision time per executive and year
Effectiveness
more EBITDA
- +67 %excess return at broad real ownership (Study A)
- 24/24success factors activated – by Excel, none
The freed capacity flows into challenging the initiatives – visibly higher program success, because broad participation is exactly the lever behind the curve.
Speed
cash effect earlier
- 10 daysrollout instead of weeks
- 3 monthsto the first effective cost reductions
Faster liquidity impact – in the reference program after three months rather than quarters.
Figures: sections 03, 04, 07 and 12 of this page; rollout and time-to-value metrics from the basic-materials program (section 12).
In a turnaround or restructuring, what matters is not only whether impact arrives – but when.
Effectiveness and efficiency determine the size of the value – in the P&L as well as in cash flow. Speed determines how quickly the P&L-effective value also becomes liquidity-effective. In special situations, exactly this time lag between result and cash is often the decisive lever.
10 days
to productive use – the first time gain lies in the rollout
As measured in the restructuring program of a basic-materials group: 100 initiative owners became productive in 12 one-hour sessions – the team workspace stood after 2 days of no-code customizing.
>€1m
run-rate loss per week of delay in the basic-materials program
What that means: the program unlocks €65m in savings per year. As long as the initiatives are not yet effective, that amount is forgone pro rata – €65m ÷ 52 weeks ≈ €1.25m per week. Every week of earlier start is therefore more than a million earlier in cash.
3 months
to the first effective cost reductions in the reference case
The same program: after the 10-day rollout, the first initiatives were cash-effective within three months. That is time to value – the time to first liquidity impact, not the project duration.
For turnaround stakeholders – CRO, bank, creditors – the first question is: when does liquidity arrive? Speed is their lead currency, not excess return.
Substantiated, not asserted: Successful transformations had implemented initiatives worth 28 % of the fully ramped value after 3 months, 57 % after 6 and 74 % after 12 months (Study C). Those who start early capture most of the value within the first year – speed is a measured success indicator, not a sales point.
Evidence: Study C (2019, n=82) – speed as a success indicator, time curve 28 / 57 / 74 %; Study B (2021, n=1,034) – "accelerate the timeline for capturing value". Program metrics: ChangeMaker client program, basic-materials group (sanitized, real KPIs); rollout metrics.
The cross-check: by how many working days must a tool accelerate implementation for the EBITDA effect to exceed the annual license?
One known figure is enough: EBITDA. The total annual license of your size class runs in the background.
- Step 1The input is the EBITDA of the company or business unit – or revenue as a substitute, of which 10 % counts as EBITDA.
- Step 2One working day of implementation impact is the realized EBITDA target per working day: one third of EBITDA × 67 % realization ÷ 250 working days (Studies B and C).
- Step 3The total annual license of your size class divided by this daily value yields the working days from which the tool has paid for itself.
- The tool has paid for itself from
- working days of earlier impact
For scale: projects typically overrun their planned duration by 22 to 33 %. At around seven months from initiative idea to implementation, that is 32 to 49 working days of delay – if the tool merely avoided this delay, the annual license would already have paid for itself around over.
We show you live, on an example program in ChangeMaker, how quickly your team can get up and running.
Book a demoScale references: time overruns of 22 to 25 % in software surveys (Moløkken-Østvold/Jørgensen, 2003), 33 % for software projects (Study F: McKinsey/Oxford, 2012, n > 5,400); seven months as the house assumption for typical initiative duration. The annual license per size class as in the upper calculator. Full citations: appendix.
Three levers, three currencies, three stakeholders – one platform.
| Lever | Question | Currency | Addressee |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Effectiveness | How much value is created? | Excess return, EBITDA | Owners, management |
| 2 · Efficiency | At what effort? | Time / capacity | Initiative teams, PMO, advisors |
| 3 · Speed | When, as cash? | Liquidity | CRO, CFO, banks |
A different lever leads for each target group.
Real client programs with real KPIs.
€65m
annual cost savings
Restructuring · 140 initiatives
Read the case →+38 Pp.
higher completion rate – 92 % completed
Carve-out · 2,500 tasks
Read the case →−14 %
cost of goods sold in 2 years, −9 % total costs – at most −8 % was to be expected
Operational excellence · shipyard group · 130 initiatives
Read the case →500 / 2.500
initiatives / milestones, consolidated fully automatically
Strategy execution · 75 countries
Read the case →"Thanks to ChangeMaker, we have been able to significantly increase the speed and implementation success of our projects. What is particularly impressive is how easy it is to integrate and mobilize teams – everyone can immediately see where we stand and what needs to be done next."
Sanitized case studies, real KPIs. Business results belong to the respective program; ChangeMaker drives transparency, execution and reporting. Customer quote verbatim.
See the effect on your own program.
In a short demo we show, on a real program, how ChangeMaker raises the effectiveness, efficiency and speed of your value creation – and how quickly your team is working with it.
You do not have to set up the mechanics behind it yourself: templates per program type, the maturity-level logic and the reporting come with ChangeMaker, and the customizer is included in the price – your team starts in a finished system, not on a blank sheet.
changemaker.ai · Dr. Alexander Ploghaus · +49 151 4004 6152
Make change. Not plans.
The evidence base.
For anyone who wants to go deeper into the facts, here is the evidence apparatus: the six studies, the complete success-factor mapping, the case examples and the full list of sources used.
The key studies on success factors and their financial impact.
The key studies, cited more than once, are marked with letters, so that the success factors and their economic effects are clearly substantiated. Online page titles such as "Business Transformation: Success Metrics" (= C) or "Large-scale transformations for long-term impact" (= D) are the same studies, not additional sources.
How many people are really needed in a transformation?
Participation rate → excess return (the TRS curve −18 / +18 / +30 / +67 %) · 4 success factors
Losing from day one: Why even successful transformations fall short
Value loss by phase (22 / 23 / 35 / 20 %) · 67 % vs. 37 % realization · 7 success factors
The numbers behind successful transformations
Time curve 28 / 57 / 74 % · 7 success factors
How to implement transformations for long-term impact
42 % value loss in the late phases · only 12 % sustain beyond three years · 3 success factors → 3.4×
Durch Wandel Wert schaffen
3 success factors · up to 70 % miss their targets
Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value
Large programs overrun budget and schedule far more and deliver less value than planned – a larger share of the outcome depends on factors outside any steering system. Basis of the size-based attribution in step 4 (section 06) · 33 % schedule overrun in the delay comparison (section 13)
Mapping the 24 success factors with proven financial impact onto the 3C and the 7 key experiences.
Sorted by the three effect dimensions of the method: Concerns (wanting to), Competencies (being able and allowed to), Coordination (acting in concert). The "Evidence" column names the study per factor and, where the study quantifies it, the measured effect: 4 factors from A, 7 from B, 7 from C, 3 from D and 3 from E.
| Success factor | 3C | 7 key experiences | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broad mobilization (≥8 %) | Concerns | 1 Community · 3 Co-creating | A−18 % to +67 % excess return by participation band |
| Strengths focus / self-efficacy | Concerns | 4 Working in concert · 5 Negative emotions | Afrom ~7 % activated participation on, returns turn positive |
| Replacing the uncommitted / moving talent | Concerns | 1 Community · 6 Virtues of power | Aon average only 2 % of the workforce own initiatives |
| Visibly engaged leadership | Concerns | 6 Virtues of power | Bleadership role modeling 5.3× |
| Collaborative co-creation / buy-in | Concerns | 1 Community · 3 Co-creating | Bwithout frontline and line involvement 3 % success, with it 26 to 28 % |
| Addressing top and bottom line | Concerns | 2 Understanding the system | C41 % of value from growth, 9 % from G&A and headcount |
| Organizational health | Concerns | 1 · 5 · 6 | Cone of the four measured success indicators |
| Ambitious, evolving targets | Concerns | 2 System · 4 Working in concert | Ctarget ≥ 75 % instead of ≤ 25 % of trailing earnings |
| Capability building / talent upgrade | Competencies | 3 Co-creating · 7 Productivity | Dpeople targets as a late-phase practice → 3.4× sustainability |
| Cascading targets to all levels | Competencies | 3 Co-creating · 4 Working in concert | Bunderstanding one's own contribution 5.5× |
| Granular frontline initiatives | Competencies | 3 Co-creating | C68 % of initiatives ≤ $250k, 50 % of value from the small ones |
| Fact-based assessment | Competencies | 2 Understanding the system | Ecornerstone of baseline and targets |
| Balanced measurement (leading/lagging) | Competencies | 2 Understanding the system | Ecornerstone of processes and cadence |
| Enterprise-wide scope | Coordination | 2 System · 4 Working in concert | Csuccess indicator "go big, go broad" |
| Speed & quick wins | Coordination | 4 Working in concert · 7 Productivity | C28 / 57 / 74 % of value after 3 / 6 / 12 months |
| Pipeline renewal | Coordination | 2 System · 5 Negative emotions | C+70 % pipeline renewal after year 1 in the top quartile |
| Change story / communication | Coordination | 1 Community · 2 System | Bchange story 5.8× · messaging 6.3× · communication 8.0× |
| Governance & clear accountability | Coordination | 4 Working in concert · 6 Virtues of power | Bclear roles 3.8× |
| Transformation into routine processes | Coordination | 2 System · 4 Working in concert | Bweekly executive briefings 2.0× · reviews 1.6× |
| Continuous improvement | Coordination | 5 Negative emotions · 7 Productivity | Btarget setting and performance dialogues 1.5× each |
| Implementation rigor (late phases) | Coordination | 4 Working in concert · 7 Productivity | D42 % of value is lost in the late phases |
| Best talent on top initiatives | Coordination | 3 Co-creating · 6 Virtues of power | Dpeople targets as a late-phase practice → 3.4× sustainability |
| Sufficient resources per phase | Coordination | 7 Maximizing productivity | Abeyond five initiatives per head: 20 days more delay, 40 % more value lost |
| Standardized tools / SSOT | Coordination | 2 System · 7 Productivity | Ecornerstone of tools and formats |
Four client programs in detail.
Basic-materials group
Restructuring
€65m in annual cost savings steered across 140 initiatives. Team rollout in 10 days, first reductions after 3 months. >€1m run-rate loss per week of delay.
Read the case →Carve-out, diversified group
Integration discipline
20 teams steered 2,500 action items with ownership and deadlines. Template after 2 days, no-code. >99 % started, 92 % completed – 38 pp. above typical corporate projects.
Read the case →Shipyard group
Operational excellence
70 owners, 130 initiatives, 1,200 tasks steered via a maturity-level model. Over 2 years −9 % total costs, −14 % cost of goods sold – only five years after the last OpEx program, when at most −8 % was to be expected. Fully automated reports at every committee level.
Read the case →Building-technology group
Matrix consolidation
120 strategic action fields in 3 matrix dimensions, >500 initiatives with 2,500 milestones, 75 countries. Consolidated fully automatically, management-ready per reporting level.
Read the case →Sanitized case studies, real KPIs. Business results belong to the respective program; ChangeMaker drives transparency, execution and reporting.
Sources and evidence.
- AMcKinsey & Company, "How many people are really needed in a transformation?", September 2021, n = 60 listed companies, 24-month excess TRS vs. index. A correlation, not a promised return.
- BMcKinsey & Company, "Losing from day one: Why even successful transformations fall short", global survey, December 2021, n = 1,034. Respondents' self-assessment; "financial benefit" defined there as EBITDA gain.
- CMcKinsey Quarterly, "The numbers behind successful transformations" (Laczkowski/Tan/Winter), October 2019, n = 82 listed companies. The page uses the time curve, the four named success indicators and three further measured findings.
- DMcKinsey & Company, "How to implement transformations for long-term impact", global survey, May 2023. The 12 % measure sustainability over three years, not the success rate.
- EMcKinsey Germany, "Durch Wandel Wert schaffen" ("Creating value through change", Klinkoff/Guggenberger/Weichel), January 2026. Value-creation framework; up to 70 % miss their targets (Transformational Change Survey).
- FMcKinsey & Company / University of Oxford, "Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value" (2012, n > 5,400 IT projects). The page uses the risk profile of large programs (size-based attribution, step 4) and the average schedule overrun of 33 % for software projects (delay comparison).
- McKinsey, "Three keys to faster, better decisions" (De Smet/Jost/Weiss, 2019, n > 1,200) – basis of the ~12 recovered decision days.
- McKinsey Global Institute (2012) – around 20 % of the working week spent searching for information; damping factor of the same derivation.
- R. Panko, University of Hawaii (2008), "Spreadsheet Errors", arXiv:0802.3457 – around 88 % of operational spreadsheets contain errors.
- Moløkken-Østvold/Jørgensen, "A Review of Surveys on Software Effort Estimation" (ISESE 2003) – time overruns of 22 to 25 % across several software surveys.
- ChangeMaker client programs, sanitized, real KPIs.