Change Canvas — Embedding a New Way of Working at Maasland Verzekeringen

A four-round, intermediate change-leadership simulation set inside Maasland Verzekeringen N.V., a Utrecht-based mid-market Dutch insurer (2,100 staff, €640M gross written premium) rolling a new low-code, team-based way of working across 18 claims and underwriting teams (≈600 people). It is 14 April 2026 and the rollout has stalled: the company repeated its historic pattern — a launch town-hall, one training session, then silence — and adoption sits at just 34% daily active use against an 80% board target, the resistance index has climbed from 28 to 51/100, engagement is down 14 points, and €410,000 of the €1.2M change budget is already spent (≈€790,000 remains) with platform-licence renewal and a CFO go/no-go in month 10. As the Change Lead reporting to the COO, the learner applies Woody van Olffen's Change Canvas logic — designing and monitoring change across the rational case, the emotional and political reality, capability building, and reinforcement — rather than announcing and assuming. Round 1 (Diagnose): separate the three root-cause gaps behind the 34% stall — the 'why' (no compelling case for change), the 'ability' (one-off training), and the 'reinforcement' (managers not modelling the behaviour) — and pick the highest-leverage stakeholders to engage first. Round 2 (Plan): design the intervention portfolio under the remaining budget by choosing intervention intensity (light comms+e-learning / medium workshops+coaching / heavy embedded agents+manager bootcamps), a communication cadence (one-off broadcast vs. sustained two-way rhythm), and the engagement order — the discovery being that front-loading line-manager enablement before frontline training bends the adoption curve more than any volume of communication. Round 3 (Decide): sequence the 12 remaining teams into waves and commit spend, choosing whether to stabilise the six struggling live teams first (rescue) or push forward (momentum), while respecting finite change-agent and coaching capacity so heavy intensity cannot be lavished on every team. Round 4 (Recover): absorb two shocks — a vocal middle-manager coalition questioning the programme in a town-hall and a regulatory deadline pulling 20% of frontline time for a month — protect adoption, convert sceptical managers into advocates, install a reinforcement mechanism (peer champions, sponsor visibility, metrics in daily routines), and defend the platform renewal to the board. The scoring rewards diagnosing the reinforcement gap, manager-first sequencing, dosage matched to readiness, rescuing early failures, treating resistance as signal, and designing reinforcement — and measurably punishes the five classic errors: broadcast bias, frontline-before-managers, uniform heavy intensity, momentum over rescue, and launch-as-success. Final KPIs track daily-active adoption (%), the resistance index (/100), engagement change (points), budget remaining (€K) and modelled time-to-embed (months).