Lippitt–Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change
The Lippitt–Knoster model for managing complex change is a diagnostic framework that lists the conditions a complex change needs: vision, skills, incentives, resources and an action plan, with consensus added in some versions. It links each missing condition to a typical symptom, such as confusion without vision or false starts without a plan. Attribution is disputed.
Quick facts
- Originator
- Disputed: credited to Mary Lippitt (1987) and Timothy Knoster; some sources also cite Delorese Ambrose
- Year / source
- Lippitt (1987); Knoster (early 1990s), later in print with Villa & Thousand; some sources also cite an Ambrose version (1987)
- Type
- Diagnostic (conditions and symptoms)
- Focus
- Organizational and team readiness for a complex change
- Elements
- Vision · Skills · Incentives · Resources · Action plan (· Consensus in some versions)
- Best for
- Explaining a symptom by the condition that is missing
- Exam relevance
- Not in the APMG Foundation syllabus
What happens when an element of the Lippitt–Knoster model is missing?
The model is usually drawn as a grid. The full row has every condition and produces change. Each other row removes one condition and shows the result.
| Missing condition | Typical symptom |
|---|---|
| Vision | Confusion: people do not know where the change is going |
| Skills | Anxiety: people doubt they can work the new way |
| Incentives | Resistance: people see no reason to make the effort |
| Resources | Frustration: people want to change but lack time, tools or budget |
| Action plan | False starts: activity begins, stalls and restarts |
Some versions add consensus as a first condition, with sabotage as its symptom, and some show slow or gradual change in place of resistance.
The Lippitt–Knoster model therefore reads a visible symptom as a sign of an invisible gap.
Who created the Lippitt–Knoster model?
No single, clear original source exists. The grid circulates under several names:
- Timothy Knoster, who presented it in the early 1990s in inclusive-education settings and later published it with Richard Villa and Jacqueline Thousand;
- Mary Lippitt, credited with a 1987 version;
- Delorese Ambrose, credited in some sources with a 1987 version.
Many slides and articles reproduce it with no source at all. The names in its title reflect this mixed history rather than a settled authorship.
The Lippitt–Knoster model is therefore best cited with its attribution marked as uncertain.
How do you use the Lippitt–Knoster model to diagnose a change?
At Brightwater Health, a new discharge process has been announced for six months, but wards keep switching between old and new forms. Staff say they support the idea.
The change team starts from the symptom, not from the list:
- Name the symptom. Repeated restarts look like false starts.
- Check the matching condition. There is no shared plan: each ward chose its own date and steps.
- Check the others quickly. Vision is clear, skills are in place, incentives are neutral, and resources are tight on two wards.
- Act on the gaps. Agree one sequenced plan across wards and free nursing time on the two stretched wards.
The Lippitt–Knoster model is therefore most useful as a conversation tool that turns complaints into a specific missing condition.
What are the limitations of the Lippitt–Knoster model?
The model's strength is its clarity: one grid gives a team a shared vocabulary for why a change is stuck.
The one-to-one mapping of conditions to symptoms is a simplification. Anxiety can come from missing resources as easily as from missing skills, and several gaps usually occur together. Little published research has tested it as a predictive tool.
It also says nothing about sequencing, sponsorship or the emotional side of change, and its uncertain origin makes it hard to trace back to a theory.
The Lippitt–Knoster model is therefore a quick diagnostic, best combined with a process model and direct conversation with the people affected.
Lippitt–Knoster model vs. the change formula: what is the difference?
| Lippitt–Knoster model | Change formula | |
|---|---|---|
| Originator | Disputed: Knoster, Lippitt, Ambrose | Gleicher; published by Beckhard & Harris |
| Form | Grid of conditions and symptoms | Equation: D × V × F > R |
| Elements | Vision, skills, incentives, resources, action plan (and consensus) | Dissatisfaction, vision, first steps, resistance |
| Starting point | A visible symptom such as confusion or frustration | The balance of motivation against resistance |
| Output | The missing condition behind a symptom | Which factor is too weak to overcome resistance |
Both are diagnostics built on missing conditions; the change formula weighs readiness against resistance, while the Lippitt–Knoster model traces a symptom to its missing condition.
FAQ
What are the five elements of the managing complex change model?
The five elements are vision, skills, incentives, resources and an action plan. Some versions add consensus as a sixth. The model says that complex change needs all of them, and that each missing element produces a recognizable symptom in the people involved.
What happens when vision is missing in a change?
According to the managing complex change model, a missing vision produces confusion: people do not know where the change is heading or why. The other pairings are skills with anxiety, incentives with resistance, resources with frustration and the action plan with false starts.
Who created the Lippitt–Knoster model?
The authorship is uncertain. The grid is credited to Mary Lippitt, with a 1987 version, and to Timothy Knoster, who presented it in the early 1990s and later published it with Villa and Thousand; some sources also cite Delorese Ambrose with a 1987 version. Cite it with the attribution marked as disputed.
Is the Lippitt–Knoster model the same as the change formula?
No. Both look for missing conditions, but the change formula multiplies dissatisfaction, vision and first steps and weighs them against resistance. The Lippitt–Knoster model lists five or six conditions and pairs each with the symptom that appears when it is absent.
Sources
- Knoster, T., Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education (2nd ed.). Paul H. Brookes.
- Lippitt, M. (1987). The Managing Complex Change Model. Enterprise Management Ltd.
- Anderson, E. (2025). Preparing improvement teams to manage complex change in a continuous improvement program. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1566862.
- Last reviewed