Industries

Local Government

Over 73% of Australian and New Zealand residents live in a council powered by TechnologyOne software. OneCouncil supports the day-to-day operations and strategic requirements of local governments with a single, integrated solution.

Explore Local Government Solution overview Resources Book a demo
Education

Empowering over 6.5 million students globally and mobilising over 60 per cent of higher education in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, our SaaS ERP solution, OneEducation, is specifically designed to meet the unique requirements of the higher education sector.

Explore Education Solution overview Resources Book a demo
Government

Trusted by more than 230 government departments and agencies, our OneGovernment SaaS ERP solution supports the day-to-day operations and strategic requirements of state, territory, federal and central governments in Australia and New Zealand.

Explore Government Solution overview Resources Book a demo
Health and Community Services

Empowering over 160 care providers, hospitals, and community service organisations

Explore Health and Community Services Solution overview Resources Book a demo
Asset and Project Intensive Industries

Over $300 billion worth of assets and infrastructure are managed using TechnologyOne software.

Explore Asset and Project Intensive Industries Solution overview Resources Book a demo
Financials and Corporate

Supporting the management of over $500 billion worth of funds across financial and corporate organisations.

Financials and Corporate Solution overview Resources Book a demo

Products

  • Our award-winning CiA platform delivers a single solution for our communities, enabling possibilities now and in the future.

  • Explore CiA Platform

  • DxP extends the power of our enterprise software for our customers to reach and interact with their customers.

  • Explore DxP Platform

What's in CiA

What's in DxP

Company

About us At TechnologyOne, our mission is to better our community, from its citizens to students, by leveraging our team’s innovation, drive, and determination.
About Us Core Beliefs Values History Our Leaders
Investors Technology One Limited (ASX: TNE) is Australia's leading enterprise software company and one of Australia's top 100 ASX-listed companies.
Investors Corporate Governance Financial Calendar Annual Reports Board of Directors
Life@Tech1 Find your place at TechnologyOne
Why work for us? Life at TechnologyOne TechnologyOne at Work Graduates & Interns Join the Team

Select your region

Submit
<< Return to Toolkit

UK Higher Education · Senior Leadership Tool

Transformation Readiness Diagnostic

A structured diagnostic to test whether your institution is genuinely ready for transformation

› › › › ›

Why Readiness Determines Transformation Success

Transformation succeeds or fails long before a system is procured or a project team is mobilised. The real determinant of success is readiness, not just enthusiasm or strategic intent, but the practical, operational, and governance foundations that allow an institution to make clear, defensible decisions under pressure.

This Readiness Self‑Assessment is designed to help institutions test that foundation. It moves beyond abstract agreement (“yes, we need change”) and into the concrete realities that shape delivery: ownership, alignment, data, capacity, and risk.

It is deliberately structured as a conversation tool, not a pass/fail test. Its purpose is to help leaders surface assumptions, identify gaps, and agree on the decisions or mitigations required before transformation begins, or before it moves into its next phase.

The four readiness domains
1
Governance Readiness

Do we have the clarity, ownership, and decision‑making structures required to support transformation?

2
Organisational Readiness

Are the right people aligned, engaged, and prepared to work together across boundaries?

3
Data Readiness

Do we have the definitions, quality, and trust required to make decisions with confidence?

4
Capacity Readiness

Do we have the time, space, and expertise to deliver transformation alongside business‑as‑usual?

How to use this diagnostic

This toolkit is designed as a collective exercise, bringing together a cross‑section of your university leadership teams to build a shared, evidence‑based view of institutional readiness. While the online portal allows individuals to work through each question one by one, the real value comes from comparing perspectives, discussing differences, and agreeing on the actions needed before progressing. The toolkit works best when used to prompt conversation, surface assumptions, and create collective clarity about strengths, gaps, and decisions. /p>

Using the Output

The diagnostic is designed to highlight:

  • Strengths: areas of confidence and stability
  • Gaps: areas requiring clarification or investment
  • Risks: issues that need explicit mitigation
  • Decisions: items requiring senior leadership agreement

The goal is not perfection. The goal is clarity. Clarity that allows institutions to move forward with confidence, knowing where they are strong, where they need support, and what decisions must be made before transformation can succeed.

Domain 1 of 4

Domain 1

Governance Readiness

Do we have the clarity, ownership, and decision‑making structures required to support transformation?

These indicate that governance readiness is in place. Use them to inform your score.

Governance structures are documented, understood, and actively used
Ownership of policies and processes is clear and accepted
Decision‑making is timely, transparent, and evidence‑based
Escalation routes are known and trusted
Committees focus on assurance and decision‑making, not status updates

If any of these apply, they should inform your score and be treated as priority actions.

Decisions routinely stall or bounce between committees
Top tipCreate a single decision‑owner for each paper and introduce a "decision route map" so committees know exactly what they are approving and why.
Ownership is unclear or contested
Top tipAssign one named accountable owner per workstream or policy, recorded in a shared register that everyone can see.
Governance structures exist on paper but not in practice
Top tipRationalise the structure: remove dormant groups, clarify terms of reference, and ensure each committee has a clear purpose, membership, and decision remit.
Risk is avoided rather than managed
Top tipIntroduce a simple, shared risk framework with clear thresholds for escalation and require every proposal to state the risk and how it will be mitigated.
Operational teams feel decisions are made "to" them, not "with" them
Top tipBuild early engagement into the process — short pre‑consultation conversations, draft‑sharing, and clear feedback loops before decisions are finalised.

Score each question from 1 to 4. The Governance domain score will be calculated from these six ratings.

› Do we have a clearly defined governance structure for transformation, with agreed remits, escalation routes, and decision‑making authority?
› Is it clear who owns each major policy, process, and data definition that will be affected by the transformation?
› Do committees understand their role in transformation — assurance, decision‑making, oversight, and risk?
› Are decision‑makers confident in their ability to make timely, defensible decisions?
› Do we have a shared understanding of risk, and a willingness to make proportionate trade‑offs?
› Are operational voices — Registry, Student Services, Academic Governance, Data Teams, and Digital Teams — represented early and consistently?

Key for Governance question scoring

4:Governance is documented, understood, and used consistently.

3:Mostly clear, but some areas rely on individuals rather than structures.

2:Governance exists on paper but not in practice; decisions often stall.

1:No clear governance; ownership unclear or contested.

Select all 6 question scores to calculate the domain score.

Domain 2 of 4

Domain 2

Organisational Readiness

Are the right people aligned, engaged, and prepared to work together across boundaries?

These indicate that organisational readiness is in place. Use them to inform your score.

Cross‑functional working is established and constructive
Senior leaders are aligned on priorities and trade‑offs
Faculties and central services understand their roles and responsibilities
Communication channels are clear and consistent

If any of these apply, they should inform your score and be treated as priority actions.

Persistent misalignment between Faculties and central services
Top tipEstablish a cross‑functional decision group with real authority, shared priorities, and a single version of the truth for key decisions.
Digital teams and operational teams working in parallel rather than together
Top tipIntroduce joint design sessions and shared sign‑off points so digital and operational teams co‑own solutions from the start.
Lack of clarity about who needs to be involved in key decisions
Top tipCreate a simple RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) for major decisions and publish it so everyone knows their role.
Transformation is seen as "a system project" rather than institutional change
Top tipReframe communications and governance so transformation is positioned as an institutional programme — with academic, operational, and digital ownership, not just technology.

Score each question from 1 to 4. The Organisational domain score will be calculated from these ratings.

›Do Registry, Faculties, digital teams, and senior leadership share a common understanding of the transformation's purpose and scope?
›Are there known tensions or misalignments between teams that could affect delivery?
›Do we have a cross‑functional group with the authority and trust to make operational decisions?
›Are academic leaders engaged and aware of the implications for curriculum, assessment, and student experience?
›Do we have a shared language — e.g. what we mean by "programme," "module," "engagement," "risk"?

Key for Organisational question scoring

4:Cross-functional working is established and constructive; leadership is aligned; roles and responsibilities are clear.

3:Broadly aligned, but tensions or gaps in cross-functional working remain.

2:Misalignment is frequent; transformation is largely seen as a technology project.

1:Significant misalignment; teams working in silos; no shared understanding of purpose or scope.

Select all 5 question scores to calculate the domain score.

Domain 3 of 4

Domain 3

Data Readiness

Do we have the definitions, quality, and trust required to make decisions with confidence?

These indicate that data readiness is in place. Use them to inform your score.

Data definitions are documented, owned, and consistently applied
Data lineage is understood and transparent
Known data issues are acknowledged and actively managed
Operational teams trust the data they use

If any of these apply, they should inform your score and be treated as priority actions.

Multiple versions of the same data exist across teams
Top tipEstablish a single source of truth and retire all shadow datasets, with one team accountable for maintaining the master version.
Definitions vary between Faculties or professional services
Top tipAgree institution‑wide definitions and publish them in a shared data dictionary that everyone must use.
Leaders hesitate to act because they don't trust the numbers
Top tipIntroduce transparent data‑lineage notes and highlight known limitations so leaders can make decisions with confidence.
Manual workarounds are required to produce basic reports
Top tipAutomate core reports and remove redundant steps, prioritising fixes that reduce manual effort and improve reliability.

Score each question from 1 to 4. The Data domain score will be calculated from these ratings.

›Do we have agreed, institution‑wide definitions for key data items — e.g. enrolment status, progression, attendance, assessment structures, and learning outcome design?
›Is there clarity on data ownership and stewardship across the student lifecycle?
›Do we understand the quality, completeness, and limitations of our current data?
›Are there known workarounds or shadow systems that undermine trust in the data?
›Do leaders feel confident making decisions based on current reporting?

Key for Data question scoring

4:Definitions are agreed, owned, and consistently applied; data lineage is transparent and trusted.

3:Most key definitions exist; data broadly trusted but some inconsistencies remain.

2:Definitions vary across teams; shadow systems or manual workarounds undermine data confidence.

1:No agreed definitions; significant data quality issues; leaders do not trust reporting for decision-making.

Select all 5 question scores to calculate the domain score.

Domain 4 of 4

Domain 4

Capacity Readiness

Do we have the time, space, and expertise to deliver transformation alongside business‑as‑usual?

These indicate that capacity readiness is in place. Use them to inform your score.

Capacity planning is realistic and evidence‑based
Teams have protected time for transformation work
Expertise gaps are identified and addressed early
Business‑as‑usual pressures are acknowledged and planned for

If any of these apply, they should inform your score and be treated as priority actions.

Transformation is expected to be delivered "on top of the day job"
Top tipAllocate protected time or backfill for key roles so transformation work is planned, not squeezed in around BAU.
Key staff are already overstretched
Top tipRe‑sequence activity or reduce scope to match realistic capacity, making explicit what will stop or pause.
No clear plan for post‑implementation optimisation
Top tipBuild a 12‑month optimisation plan before go‑live, with named owners and scheduled improvement cycles.
Emotional labour and change fatigue are not recognised
Top tipIntroduce structured check‑ins and visible leadership acknowledgement of pressure points, ensuring wellbeing is part of the governance conversation.

Score each question from 1 to 4. The Capacity domain score will be calculated from these ratings.

›Do we understand the real workload of teams involved in transformation — not assumptions, but actual capacity?
›Have we identified peak periods — admissions, assessment, enrolment, exam boards — where capacity will be constrained?
›Do we have the right expertise available — policy, data, process, technical, and change management?
›Is protected time allocated for staff to engage meaningfully in design, testing, and decision‑making?
›Do we have a plan for sustaining change after go‑live?

Key for Capacity question scoring

4:Capacity is realistically planned; protected time is allocated; expertise gaps are identified and addressed.

3:Capacity broadly understood; some roles overstretched; protected time partially in place.

2:Transformation expected alongside BAU; capacity constraints not formally addressed.

1:Key staff are significantly overstretched; no protected time; no clear sustainability plan.

Select all 5 question scores to calculate the domain score.