In one minute
Examine forces supporting and resisting a proposed change before selecting interventions.
Define the change, list evidence-backed driving and restraining forces, locate who controls them and test whether removing a restraint is safer than increasing pressure.
The problem it addresses
A change plan assumes resistance is an attitude instead of a response to incentives and constraints.
A utility wants residents to adopt a new smart-meter portal. Enrollment is low because multilingual tenants cannot access accounts controlled by landlords.
When to use it
- Use Force Field Analysis when a change plan assumes resistance is an attitude instead of a response to incentives and constraints.
- The team can examine: A specific proposed change, affected actors, observed constraints and an ethical boundary.
- A relevant situation is: A utility wants residents to adopt a new smart-meter portal. Enrollment is low because multilingual tenants cannot access accounts controlled by landlords.
When not to use it
Do not use it to replace evidence, accountable judgement or affected people's participation.
Adding subjective force scores into a false net number or framing legitimate rights as resistance to overcome.
Inputs required
A specific proposed change, affected actors, observed constraints and an ethical boundary.
Step-by-step process
1. Bound the decision and name its owner.
Write the scope, decision owner and people who can veto or revise the result before starting the workshop.
2. Collect the necessary evidence and affected perspectives.
Collect and date the necessary evidence: A specific proposed change, affected actors, observed constraints and an ethical boundary.
3. Define the current and intended condition.
Describe the present state and a specific proposed change so participants evaluate the same transition.
4. Identify driving forces with evidence.
For every driving force, name its actor, evidence and mechanism; separate observed pressure from aspiration.
5. Identify restraints and whose interests they protect.
Ask which constraint protects safety, rights or resources before calling it resistance.
6. Challenge any numeric scores as judgments, not measurements.
If participants assign weights, record who judged them and why; do not add them into a false causal score.
7. Test one restraint-reducing intervention and monitor harm.
Pilot the smallest change to a modifiable constraint and monitor both uptake and unintended costs.
8. Record the output, next test and review trigger.
Store the artifact with its evidence links, owner, bounded next test and date or trigger for review.
AI automation lens
AI may sort authorised notes and expose missing evidence. It must not invent observations, silently decide for affected people or present a generated map as validated.
Visual model
Text alternative: Define the current and intended condition; Identify driving forces with evidence; Identify restraints and whose interests they protect; Challenge any numeric scores as judgments, not measurements; Test one restraint-reducing intervention and monitor harm.
Interactive example
Scenario: A utility wants residents to adopt a new smart-meter portal. Enrollment is low because multilingual tenants cannot access accounts controlled by landlords.
Worked answer: Treat account control and language as restraints; pilot tenant access and translated support instead of more reminders.
Facilitation notes
Record disagreements before synthesising; ask whose evidence is missing; state who may revise the result.
Expected output
- An inspectable decision artifact, its assumptions and evidence, a responsible owner, a bounded next test and a review date.
- Test one restraint-reducing intervention and monitor harm.
- A named owner, test and review date.
Common mistakes
Adding subjective force scores into a false net number or framing legitimate rights as resistance to overcome.
Quality checklist
- The decision and system boundary are explicit.
- Affected people and alternative accounts are included.
- Each important claim has a source or is marked as an assumption.
- An owner, safeguard and disconfirming signal are named.
Template
Knowledge check
Question: What mistake would undermine this method in the scenario?
Answer: Adding subjective force scores into a false net number or framing legitimate rights as resistance to overcome.
Related tools
References
- Force Field Analysis — method source (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
- Independent practice reference (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
Method profile
The method structures a discussion and a test; it does not establish causal proof or guarantee success.