Readiness Decision... Between Two Decisions
Plans have two doors: one leads to the documents, and the other to the organization. Between these two doors, entire plans collapse, because those who approved them assumed their signature had opened both simultaneously.
A plan may be sound in its objective, coherent in its logic, and grounded in a genuine need, yet fail at the first point of contact with operations. This is not because the decision was wrong, but because the organization moved from endorsement to implementation without a phase that verified its readiness to begin. Endorsing a plan answers the question: What do we want? Implementation, however, requires a different question: Are we now capable of doing it?
Between these two questions lies an independent decision, which I propose calling the “Readiness Decision.”
Implementation science refers to this area as the “pre-implementation phase,” linking it to the concept of organizational readiness for change. Researcher Brian Weiner defines it as the convergence of organizational members’ commitment to change and their shared confidence in their ability to implement it. This capability is not inferred from the mere existence of staff or systems; rather, it is tested by understanding task requirements, the availability of resources and time, the suitability of conditions, and the ability of different units to work together. Thus, an organization may possess capacity without having demonstrated readiness.
Establishing readiness begins with the organization understanding why it is changing, and then making that understanding shared. The reasons for change are not merely a boilerplate paragraph in the plan’s introduction; they are the primary material for internal marketing: What is the problem, and what evidence supports it? Why is change necessary now? What is the cost of maintaining the status quo? What are the expected benefits? What will change in employees’ roles, and what will remain constant?
Internal marketing is not polishing a completed decision, nor is it seeking employee applause. It is a planned effort that explains the logic of change, unifies understanding around it, and surfaces professional objections before they turn into operational errors. Rafiq and Ahmad link internal marketing to change management and strategy implementation through aligning and motivating employees and coordinating between units. It does not sell the decision to employees; rather, it tests the organization’s capacity to buy into it before it pays the price of implementation.
Involving implementers does not mean transferring decision-making authority to them, but it grants the decision-maker knowledge that does not reach their office automatically. Those close to the procedure see the details that elude the plan’s author and know whether the timing, staffing, and sequencing are realistic. Then begins transition engineering: defining the last day for the old method and the first stable day for the new one, and what will happen in between; distributing responsibilities; approving exceptions; preparing procedures, authorities, data, and support; and establishing a temporary alternative and a stop-point that allows for postponement or reversal before damage spreads. Training here is not an introductory lecture, but a demonstration of capability; it is measured not by attendance, but by the number of people who could perform the new task under conditions resembling reality. Similarly, piloting is not a miniature celebration of the plan, but a legitimate opportunity to discover what requires adjustment.
Notably, a recent guide for implementation in educational institutions, built on a broad review of evidence, did not treat application as a moment of announcement, but as a process involving exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainability, with stakeholder engagement, assessment of fit and feasibility, and monitoring and adaptation to results. The implication of this reference extends beyond its field: those who work with knowledge are not guided toward complex change merely by the issuance of a directive.
Therefore, announcement should be the result of readiness, not a means of manufacturing it. The “Readiness Decision” requires, prior to launch, indicators that confirm understanding of the reasons for change, completion of training, finalization of procedures, data, and support, success of the limited pilot, and mitigation of critical risks.
Having concluded the introduction, the quality of implementation is measured by acceptance, adoption, suitability, feasibility, accuracy of application, cost, reach, and sustainability—outcomes distinguished by Proctor and his colleagues. The paramount indicator then follows: Did the plan achieve its objectives relative to the baseline? Implementation may be disciplined, yet the plan itself may fail.
This concept finds its noble roots in the story of Joseph (peace be upon him). He did not stop at interpreting the years of plenty and famine; rather, he transformed knowledge of the future into an action plan: “You will plant for seven years consecutively, and what you harvest, leave in its spikes, except a little which you will eat.” Imam Al-Qurtubi explained that keeping the grain in its spikes was “to prevent rotting and to ensure longer preservation,” and that what was taken from it should be “according to need.” He further regarded the verse as a foundational principle for safeguarding legitimate interests. Thus, the plan encompassed time, action, preservation, consumption, and transition between two phases, all before the need arose.
An institution, after adopting a plan, requires less courage to announce it than it does integrity in testing it. A plan does not begin when it is published, nor does it succeed merely because everyone complies under time pressure. It begins when implementers understand its rationale, comprehend their roles, testing confirms their capability, and indicators signal that the institution is ready. Between the decision to adopt the plan and the decision to implement it lies the question that shapes the latter: Has the institution become capable of what it has decided?
A Kuwaiti writer
