From a sensitive personnel question to a manageable transition programme with clear responsibilities, risks and decision moments
Client
Flemish Government entity
Role
Organisational developer - transition design, impact analysis, stakeholder alignment and change guidance
Within a broader reform of service delivery, it was decided to position the Online Learning coaches closer to regional operations and the provincial training teams. At first sight a classical organisational transfer. In reality, a complex change trajectory: employees changed embedding, roles and expectations had to be redefined, work locations and deployability differed strongly, built-up expertise in online coaching and digital didactics risked being fragmented, and responsibility for coaching, learning content, platforms and quality control could get spread across various organisational parts.
The group was not a homogeneous team that could simply be transferred to one new function or location. Employees differed in subject expertise, didactic strengths, experience with individual coaching or group learning, ability to work physically or hybrid, contractual status, place of residence and mobility, health and pension outlook, and in change readiness and personal preferences.
In addition, there was an important organisational risk. When the coaches would shift to the region, ownership and execution of online learning could drift apart: the region would steer coaches and learning trajectories, Web-based Service Delivery could remain owner of online modules and platforms, and other teams would be responsible for production, technology or quality control. Without clear agreements, fragmentation, quality loss and a gradual erosion of the online learning offering were on the horizon.
We approached the assignment not as a mere personnel shift, but as a coherent transition of people, expertise, service delivery and governance. For that we developed a phased plan around six workstreams: decision-making and mission clarification (what is decided, what still needs to be clarified, and by whom), personnel and impact analysis (expertise, work location, work regime, mobility and deployability per employee), and future service delivery (distinction between online coaching, physical or hybrid instruction, online workshops, learning materials, quality control, platform and product ownership and monitoring).
The three other workstreams focused on knowledge and quality safeguarding (which digital functions must remain structurally safeguarded: online didactics, quality control, expertise on remote guidance, training and support for other instructors, monitoring and feedback to product development), governance and collaboration (the future responsibilities of Web-based Service Delivery, regional service delivery, provincial teams, HR, leaders and supporting services in one overview), and change and communication. The change could be experienced as loss of identity. We deliberately framed the transition as a shift towards a broader instructor and blended-learning role, with recognition for the expertise employees had built up over the years.
The turning point was the recognition that this was not a moving-plan. What from the outside looked like a personnel shift was in reality a transition in which people, built-up expertise, service delivery and governance all had to be reconnected.
From that moment the exercise was no longer driven by who physically ends up where, but by the question which knowledge, quality and coherence we wanted to protect and how we designed roles, agreements and ownership around it.
The assignment resulted in a concrete and governable transition plan with a phased timeline, clear workstreams and milestones, an overview of decisions and open questions, roles and responsibilities per actor, an individual impact and deployability analysis, risks and control measures, proposals for knowledge and quality safeguarding, communication and change interventions, and a follow-up structure for the transfer to the region.
The added value sat not only in planning the transfer, but especially in making visible what a reorganisation can easily lose: knowledge, digital quality, coherence and professional identity. A sensitive reorganisation thus becomes not a moving plan, but a transition architecture that supports both the organisational decision and the employees concerned.
