How is the SHIFT framework different from ADKAR or Kotter?

ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) and Kotter's 8-Step model are communication and alignment frameworks. They sequence the organizational activities around change: build urgency, create a coalition, communicate the vision, empower action, and so on. They are excellent at structuring the political and communicative dimensions of change.

SHIFT (Specify, Hypothesize, Intervention Design, Facilitate, Test and Iterate) is a behavioral design framework. It structures the diagnostic and intervention dimensions of change. The question it answers is not "how do we get organizational buy-in?" but "why is this specific behavior not happening and what will make it happen?"

The key difference is where each framework locates the problem.

ADKAR and Kotter locate the problem in the change process: did we communicate well enough, did we build enough urgency, did we empower people sufficiently? SHIFT locates the problem in the behavioral system: what specific barrier is preventing this specific behavior in this specific context?

These are complementary, not competing. An organization can follow Kotter's steps flawlessly (strong coalition, clear vision, communicated extensively) and still have adoption fail because the actual barriers are environmental friction, skill gaps, or habitual impulses that communication does not address. SHIFT fills the gap by diagnosing those barriers and designing interventions that match.

The practical difference shows up in how you respond when change stalls. An ADKAR approach might say: reinforce the message, provide more training, engage more sponsors. SHIFT asks: what is the barrier? Is it capability, opportunity, or motivation? What intervention specifically targets that barrier? This diagnostic precision is what makes the difference between doing more of the same and doing something different.