The BU 427 Unit 4 force field analysis, in full
Thirty-Six Against Thirty-One: A Force Field Analysis of a Composite Municipal Utility's Move to Automated Meters, and Why the Plan Works on the Restraining Side
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 427: Change Management
Instructor Name
February 25, 2026
Thirty-Six Against Thirty-One: A Force Field Analysis of a Composite Municipal Utility's Move to Automated Meters, and Why the Plan Works on the Restraining Side
The Change and the Method
Cedar Prairie Municipal Utilities, the Wisconsin utility built as a composite for this course, intends to swap the handheld routes its readers walk each month for meters that report on their own, a project scheduled to take 18 months across every district of the city. Since the commission approved the project in January 2026, little has moved. The readiness record found the utility ready in billing and the office but not among the nine meter readers. This analysis asks what is holding the situation where it is.
Lewin (1947) described an organization's current state as a quasi-stationary equilibrium, held in place by forces pushing toward change and forces pushing against it. The state shifts only when the balance shifts, and Lewin argued that reducing restraining forces tends to produce change with less tension than adding pressure, because pressure provokes counter-pressure. The analysis lists five driving and six restraining forces, weights both sides with the same stated criteria and then works on the restraining side.
How the Forces Are Weighted
Each force is scored from 1 to 3 on three criteria, and the weight is the sum, from 3 to 9. Breadth is how many people or how much of the utility the force affects. Intensity is how strongly it bears on the people it affects. Durability is whether the force will persist if nobody acts on it. The same criteria apply to both sides, so neither can be inflated by a different yardstick.
Driving Forces
Five forces push toward automated meters.
| Driving force | Breadth | Intensity | Durability | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1. Handheld system loses vendor support in December 2027 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
| D2. Estimated winter bills and re-bill complaints | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| D3. Five of nine readers eligible to retire within three years | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| D4. Rising meter accuracy failures | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| D5. Commission approval and neighboring utilities' example | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Total | 31 |
Restraining Forces
Six forces hold the utility where it is. Several of them come directly from the readiness evidence.
| Restraining force | Breadth | Intensity | Durability | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1. Readers' fear of losing their role, with nine positions becoming four | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 |
| R2. Memory of the 2019 billing conversion: late, with training after go-live | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| R3. Doubt that radio meters work in east-side basements | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| R4. Readers lack electrical and network skills | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 |
| R5. Customer concern about hourly usage data and privacy | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| R6. Capital cost and a possible rate increase | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 36 |
Reading the Balance
The restraining side outweighs the driving side, 36 to 31, which matches what the utility has experienced: approval without movement. The driving forces are real and mostly durable, but they are felt most strongly by managers and billing staff. The restraining forces are concentrated among the people who must do the work. R1 and R4 bear on only nine people, but with maximum intensity, and those nine know the meter locations, the access problems and the customers the installation will depend on. R2 is the broadest force on either side; it touches nearly everyone who remembers 2019.
The balance also rules one tactic out. The general manager has proposed publishing the cost of estimated bills at the next staff meeting to raise urgency. That would strengthen D2 a little, but in front of the readers it would read as blame, and it would likely intensify R1. The numbers also have limits worth stating. A weight of 7 for the readers' fear and a weight of 7 for the memory of 2019 look equal, yet the first sits with nine people whose cooperation the installers need every day, while the second is spread thinly across most of the staff. Totals treat forces as interchangeable when they are not. The comparison of 36 with 31 is therefore a signal that the restraining side is heavy, not a precise measure of how heavy, and the choice of which forces to work on below rests as much on who holds each force as on its score. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) note that pressure is sometimes necessary when speed matters and the change initiator has power, but that it risks lasting resentment, and 21 months before a deadline the utility does not need to accept that cost.
Working on the Restraining Side
Four restraining forces can be reduced with actions the utility controls. For R1, each reader receives a written statement of what will happen to their job: which four become technicians, which three move to named roles in customer service, water operations and warehouse, and when. Uncertainty is doing more damage than the facts would. For R2, training is scheduled to finish before each district goes live, and the operations manager publishes the schedule and is named as accountable for it, reversing the 2019 pattern. For R3, the utility installs 60 test meters in the hardest east-side basements before the network design is fixed, which turns an objection into a test and uses the readers' knowledge to choose the sites. For R4, the four future technicians start paid electrical and network training at a technical college six months before installation.
If those actions work as intended, R1 might fall from 7 to 4, R2 from 7 to 4, R3 from 6 to 3 and R4 from 6 to 3, bringing the restraining total to 24 against a driving total of 31, without any added pressure. The estimates are judgments, not measurements, and the utility should repeat the readiness survey after the first actions to test them. R5 and R6 are left for the communication plan and the commission, since neither is within the operations manager's reach. Cawsey et al. (2016) describe force field analysis as most useful when it directs effort toward the forces a change leader can actually influence, and that is how it is used here. The utility, its forces and all weights are composites for this course.
References
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2016). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106-114.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
BU 427 Unit 4 instructions, in plain terms
In the fourth unit, BU 427 asks students to conduct a force field analysis of a proposed change. The standard elements are a description of the change, lists of driving and restraining forces, a weight or strength for each force, a diagram or table, an analysis of the balance and a strategy for shifting it. Most prompts refer to Lewin's work directly. Instructors increasingly expect the weighting method to be stated rather than assigned by feel, and they often ask whether the student would strengthen driving forces or reduce restraining ones. Four to six forces a side is typical. Expect three to four pages with tables in APA 7, and a strategy that names actions tied to specific forces rather than general advice.
Inside the BU 427 Unit 4 example
The sample begins with the change and the stall, and explains Lewin's quasi-stationary equilibrium. A short method section defines three criteria, each scored 1 to 3, applied identically to both sides. Two tables list five driving and six restraining forces with their component scores and totals. The reading section explains why the restraining side is heavier and who holds those forces, adds a caution about equal scores hiding unequal importance, and rejects a pressure tactic with a reason. The final section assigns one action to each of four restraining forces, estimates new weights, and states that the estimates are judgments to be tested with a repeat survey. Two forces outside the operations manager's reach are passed to other units.
Where the points sit in the BU 427 Unit 4 rubric
The force field rubric typically gives points for identifying relevant forces on both sides, weighting them with a clear method, analyzing the balance, proposing strategies and presenting the analysis clearly with sources. Identification earns credit when forces are specific to the case and drawn from evidence. Weighting is judged on whether the same criteria apply to both sides and whether the numbers can be traced. The analysis criterion rewards explaining what the balance means for the organization rather than just reporting totals. Strategy scores highest when actions target named restraining forces and when the student explains why reducing restraints beats adding pressure in this case. A statement of the limits of the numbers is often rewarded as sound judgment.
BU 427 Unit 4 help before you submit
The most common problem with force field analyses is weights assigned by feel, which makes the totals meaningless. Another is a lopsided list, with many driving forces and few restraining ones, often because the student sees the change from management's side. Students frequently propose adding more driving forces, such as deadlines or incentives, without considering that pressure may increase resistance. Some list generic forces, like cost or culture, that could apply to any organization. Others present the diagram and totals without analysis. Finally, strategies that are not linked to particular forces, such as improve communication, give the reader no way to judge whether the balance will actually shift.
Get a BU 427 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Give us the Unit 4 instructions from your BU 427 classroom, the rubric and the change scenario the assignment sets. We write a custom example that describes the held position first, attributes every force, states the weighting criteria and spends its argument on reducing restraints. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 427 papers and business management samples
- BU 427 Unit 1: Change driver brief
- BU 427 Unit 2: Change model comparison
- BU 427 Unit 3: Readiness assessment record
- BU 427 Unit 5: Communication sequence plan
- BU 427 Unit 6: Resistance source analysis
- BU 427 Unit 7: Rollout phasing plan
- BU 427 Unit 8: Change case file
- BU 245 Unit 4: Persuasive message
- BU 302 Unit 4: Team dynamics write-up
- BU 321 Unit 4: Confidence interval report
- BU 380 Unit 4: Capability and resource audit
BU 427 Unit 4 questions, answered
How many forces should each side hold?
Enough to be honest and few enough to work with, which usually means four to six a side. A diagram with fourteen arrows is a brainstorm, and one with two is a decision already made. If the restraining side comes out much shorter than the driving side, that is usually a sign to go back to the case rather than a finding about the organization.
Where do the weights come from?
From criteria you state, such as how many people the force affects, how much of the work it touches and whether it can be reversed. Apply the same criteria to both sides. Weights assigned by feel are the commonest reason a marker discounts an otherwise reasonable analysis, and a short paragraph on method costs very little space.
Should I recommend adding driving forces?
Sparingly, and with a reason. The argument behind this model is that increasing pressure on a position somebody is holding tends to increase the holding, while removing the restraint lets the position move on its own. Where a driver genuinely is missing, say so. Where the honest answer is that a restraint needs reducing, the analysis is stronger for saying that instead.
Where can I find a free BU 427 Unit 4 sample paper?
You can read the full BU 427 Unit 4 force field analysis above for free, with both weighted tables, the reading of the balance and margin notes. Should your change or organization differ, we can write a custom analysis for free from your prompt, usually inside 48 hours.
How do I weight forces in BU 427 Unit 4?
State criteria first and apply them to both sides. The sample scores breadth, intensity and durability from 1 to 3 and adds them, so each weight runs from 3 to 9 and every total can be checked by the reader.