An all-staff email is not a change plan.
Most programs communicate in two bursts: an announcement nobody reads and a go-live notice nobody can act on. AdoptIFS runs a plan instead: 39 templates across 4 phases, anchored to real program milestones and addressed to a persona rather than a distribution list.
Read from the platform as this page loaded.
Anchored to milestones, not to dates
Every template hangs off project start, UAT or go-live with an offset in days. Move the go-live and the whole calendar moves with it, which is the difference between a plan and a spreadsheet somebody has to rebuild.
That is the whole plan, not a sample of it. What you cannot see is the copy: the subject line and the body of each one, written for that audience at that moment. Those are what a license opens.
Sending it is the easy half
The hard half is knowing who got what, who did not, and what to do about the gap.
Addressed by persona
Scheduled off the plan
Sent and recorded
Ask, then show that you listened
A pulse survey nobody hears back from trains people not to answer the next one. The loop is the point.
Survey instruments
291 questions
Structured question sets across the program, reusable between engagements so answers are comparable rather than one-off. Sentiment feeds the readiness score instead of sitting in a slide.
Pulse responses
48 responses recorded
Responses tied to the persona and cohort that gave them, so a dip shows up as a group with a name rather than as a lower average.
Readiness reporting
30 snapshots
Five weighted dimensions per persona (curriculum, assessment, simulation, engagement, sentiment), snapshotted over time, with UAT and go-live thresholds per role. Trend, not a single number on the day somebody asked.
You said, we did
39 templates including the close of the loop
A template exists for reporting back what changed because of the feedback. It is in the plan at go-live plus 42 days, which is the point at which most programs have stopped talking.
Run against the model, with an AI toolset
A workshop with an agenda and no source material is a discussion. A workshop that starts from written processes and drafted questions is a design session.
Questions drafted in advance
4,710 process questions
Every approved process in the library carries the questions to ask the business about it. A session is assembled from the processes in scope rather than written from scratch the night before.
Structured sessions
31 topics
Topics timed and sequenced, each tied to the processes under discussion, so the notes land against the process rather than in a document nobody opens again.
AI assistance in the room
865 processes it reads from
Drafting fit/gap wording, summarizing a decision into the repository, proposing the variant a sector answer implies, and finding the other processes a decision just affected. Grounded in the library, so it cites rather than invents.
Decisions captured as data
71 captured answers
Answers recorded against the process they belong to, which is what makes the output a knowledge base instead of minutes. Everything downstream (training, communications, readiness) reads from it.
The AI is useful here precisely because the library exists. It has 865 written processes to reason against, so it can point at a source instead of producing plausible text, which is the whole difference between help and hazard in a design workshop. That library is ModelIFS.
Everything you can see here is real and current, the names, the structure and the counts come straight out of the AdoptIFS library and change as it grows. What sits behind the license is the worked-out content itself: the execution steps, the data each one needs, the configuration decisions, the KPIs, the integration points, the workshop questions and the diagrams. That is the part you would otherwise spend a program building from nothing.
Sign in to open itSee the plan against your own dates.
A walkthrough puts your milestones in and shows the calendar that falls out of them.