Assess change impact by role, not by team

A change-impact assessment structured around "how does this affect the Finance team" or "how does this affect Operations" almost always produces an answer that's true on average and wrong for the one person in that team whose actual day-to-day looks nothing like their colleagues'. The team that does mostly one thing but has one person doing something quite different is the normal case, not the exception - and that person is exactly who a team-level assessment misses.

Ask for the impact broken down by role or task, not by team or department, and let the model group roles together afterwards where the impact genuinely is the same, rather than starting from the department boundary and assuming it holds. In practice this means listing what people actually spend their day doing, not their job title or which team they sit in - two "Finance Assistants" whose real day looks completely different need to show up as two separate impact assessments, not one.

The extra ten minutes this takes up front is cheaper than the surprised message from someone who read the team-wide announcement and correctly worked out it didn't describe their actual job. That message, arriving after the announcement's already gone out, is the moment change comms lose credibility with everyone else watching, not just the one person it affected.