Table 1 Requirements for successful implementation, their operationalization and data source

No.

Process component

Requirement based on program theory

Operationalization

Q1

Q2

Logs

I1

I2

1

Initiation^a

Were senior and middle management committed to the intervention at the start?

• Reasons for middle and senior management to participate

X

X

2

Communication^a

Was the intervention project communicated to the employees at the start?

• The manner in which the project was communicated to the participants

X

3

Participation^a

Was a participatory group formed? Did the employees feel involved in the intervention?

• Composition of group and procedure was in line with protocol

• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘employee involvement’ scale at T1

X

X

X

4

Fidelity^a

Was intervention phase 1 delivered by HM facilitator according to protocol?

• The extent to which the HM facilitator complied with the needs assessment protocol, according to the facilitator and researcher

X

5

Reach^a

Was intervention phase 1 received by majority of the employees?

• Attendance of employees in each step of the needs assessment according to objective attendance rates. The rate expresses the number of those who actually participated in each step out of those who were asked to participate in each step.

• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘exposure’ scale at T1

X

X

6

Communication^a

Were results of each step in phase 1 communicated to employees by HM facilitator?

• Percentage of participants who reported to have received a report of intervention step 1 interviews

• Percentage of participants who reported to have received a report of intervention step 2 questionnaires

• Percentage of participants who reported to have received a report of intervention step 3 group sessions

X

7

Satisfaction^a

Were the employees satisfied with intervention phase 1?

• Satisfaction of all employees with (elements of the) needs assessment (ie interviews, questionnaire, group session, advisory report, overall) was moderate (≥6–7.4) or high (≥7.5)^d

X

X

8

Middle management support^a

Was managerial support present at T1 according to management and employees?

• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘line manager attitudes and actions’ scale at T1

• The managers demonstrated their support of the advisory report

X

X

9

Readiness for change^c

Was the majority of the employees at T1 ready for the change?

• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘readiness for change’ scale at T1

X

No.

Process component

Requirement based on program theory

Operationalization

Q1

Q2

Logs

I1

I2

10

Middle management support^a

Was an action plan formulated by middle managers based on the advisory report?

Were quick wins formulated?

• Middle managers visibly supported the project by designing an action plan including quick wins

• The majority of the employees scored above the cut-off point on the ‘line manager attitudes and actions’ scale at T2

X

X

11

Participation^a

Did employees participate in formulating an action plan?

• The extent to which employees felt responsible for the action plan and the result of implementing the action plan (ie ownership)

• The majority of the employees scored above the cut-off point on the ‘employee involvement’ scale at T2

• Formal representatives had a role

• Middle managers encouraged active participation by employees

X

X

12

Targeting^a

Did the action plan target the right problems in the workplace?

• The action plan was applicable to the problems of the workplace

• Satisfaction with content action plan was moderate (6.0–7.4) or high (≥7.5)

X

X

13

Senior management support^a

Did senior management support the action plan?

• Senior managers supported the project throughout

• Senior managers allocated the necessary resources

X

X

14

Communication^a

Was the action plan communicated to the employees?

Were small successes celebrated?

• Employees were informed about the action plan and the progress towards its goals

• Small successes were celebrated

X

X

15

Delivery^a

Was the action plan implemented by middle managers?

• Perceived implementation of the action plan, including quick wins, according to the implementers

X

16

Exposure^a

Were the employees exposed to implementation of the action plan?

• Perceived implementation of the action plan, including quick wins, according to the employees

• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘exposure to intended intervention’ scale at T2

X

X

17

Culture^b

Did the organizational culture facilitate the implementation of the action plan?

• Inherent characteristics of the organizational culture that facilitated or impeded the implementation of the action plan

X

18

Conditions^b

Did the organization have the capacity to implement the action plan?

• The organizational characteristics that affected the (implementation) of the action plan

• The organization had the capacity and skills to implement the action plan

X

19

Events^b

Did no events interfere with the implementation of the action plan?

• Events that occurred and influenced the content or the execution of the action plan

X

X

20

Readiness for change^c

Was the majority of the employees at T2 ready for the change?

• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘readiness for change’ scale at T2

• The extent to which employees were ready for change and how this influenced the execution of the action plan

X

X

21

Satisfaction^a

Were the employees satisfied with intervention phase 2?

• Satisfaction with intervention phase 2 was moderate (6.0–7.4) or high (≥7.5)^d

X

X

22

Perception^c

Did implementers and employees perceive the intervention as positive?

• The perception of the action plan was positive

• Identify the common grounds and changes in the perception of the action plan

X