.png)
I think this is pretty apt coming out into the world the week of Bett, one of the biggest EdTech conferences in the world. I am not going at anyone in particular. In fact, as I point any fingers, I am aware of three pointing back at me! I think the scene is pretty common though. It's a boardroom somewhere where the CEO (or headteacher) announces a "digital transformation initiative." Everyone nods enthusiastically. Consultants are hired, budgets allocated, timelines drawn up. Six months later, you've got new software, shiny devices, impressive dashboards.
But there's a question nobody's asking: are you actually doing anything different?
Most organisations are spending millions to do exactly what they did before, just with iPads instead of paper. This isn't transformation - it's expensive redecoration. You've got shinier tools, but you're performing the same tasks, following the same processes, and getting marginally better results at exponentially higher costs.
“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backward.” Aldous Huxley
The digital transformation industrial complex has been selling us a lie. Every consultancy promises revolutionary change, every conference preaches disruption, and every CEO announces their 'digital-first' strategy. But scratch beneath the surface and you'll find substitution masquerading as transformation. Same work, shinier wrapper.
Most transformations fail because they only address one layer - usually the wrong one.
Technical Layer: Can the systems talk to each other? This is where most organisations stop. The software works, users can log in, systems integrate. Job done, everyone celebrates. But this is just plumbing - necessary but entirely insufficient.
Process Layer: Do workflows actually improve or just move? Previously: paper form, manager signature, department head approval, file in cabinet. Post-"transformation": digital form, click "request approval," manager clicks "approve," system routes to department head. Same five people, same three days, same hierarchy. You've digitised every step without improving anything. This is Substitution hell.
Cultural Layer: Are people thinking differently or just using different tools? This is where most transformations die. Staff use the new platform because they have to, not because it improves their work. The telltale sign: workarounds. People are finding ways to avoid the "new way" because it doesn't actually work better.
Strategic Layer: Does this advance your actual mission or just tick a "digital" box? You've got a mobile app because competitors have them. But ask: "If we removed this tomorrow, would we be worse at our core purpose?" If the answer is no, it's window dressing.
The NHS National Programme for IT failed across all four layers. £12.4 billion spent on systems that technically worked (eventually) but ignored local variations, alienated doctors who saw it as surveillance rather than support, and never clearly connected to improved patient care. We can contrast this with the NHS App - simple technical integration, eliminated steps (no more phone calls to book appointments), patients wanted it, and it clearly advanced patient access goals. That's transformation (even though it isn’t perfect by any stretch!)
Climbing the SAMR Ladder
According to one study, approximately 90% of "digital transformation" initiatives never escape the first level. We need a diagnostic tool, something that can help us move away from shiny to strategic. The one most people refer back to in education at least is The SAMR model - Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition - which describes four levels of technology integration and was developed by Ruben Puentedura back in 2013 for schools. He started working on it way back in the 1980s. It applies beyond schools though, for sure.
Substitution is everywhere. Schools with iPads replacing textbooks - same content, same pedagogy, shinier screen. Offices using Slack instead of email - still just messaging with different notifications. NHS digitising paper forms - same questions, same processes, now a PDF instead of a clipboard. Council "online portals" that are literally the same forms you used to fill in at the office.
This is direct replacement with no functional change. You're paying premium prices for marginal gains whilst convincing yourselves you've transformed.
The diagnostic question: "Can we do something we couldn't do before?"
If the answer is no, you haven't transformed anything. Stop calling it transformation. Stop paying consultants transformation rates for substitution outcomes. (And I am aware of the irony in me writing this...)
You can't skip steps, but you need a roadmap beyond Substitution.
Augmentation adds functional improvement. Google Docs instead of Word enables real-time collaboration. Khan Academy videos allow students to pause and rewind instruction. It's the same task done tangibly better - honest improvement, but not transformation yet.
Modification means significant task redesign. Flipped classroom models where video content at home enables workshop-style lessons. Customer service chatbots handling routine queries whilst humans tackle complex problems. The work itself has changed, not just the tool. This is where real change starts.
Redefinition enables previously inconceivable tasks. Global collaborative projects between schools in different countries. Real-time personalised learning paths adjusting to each student's progress. Companies running entire supply chains on predictive AI models. You're doing things that weren't possible before.
The diagnostic: "If we went back to the old way, would we lose capabilities entirely?" If yes, you've transformed. If no, you're still substituting.
"It’s tempting to think of SAMR as a mountain to be summited. But good technology integration isn’t about living at the top of the SAMR model; it’s about being aware of the range of options and picking the right strategy - or strategies - for the lesson at hand." Youki Terada
The Authenticity Trap
Recent analysis of successful transformations - IKEA, Adobe, Levi's - shows they didn't try to become something they weren't. IKEA didn't attempt to become Amazon. They amplified existing strengths rather than replacing them. But there's a dangerous flip side. Sometimes "maintaining our core strengths" is code for "we're terrified of change."
Blockbuster was exceptionally authentic to video rental. They knew their customers, understood their market, stayed true to their model. They were authentic right up until bankruptcy. Netflix didn't beat them by being more authentic - they beat them by being more adaptable.
The authenticity paradox is that your core strengths can become core constraints. The question isn't "are we being authentic?" but "are we being authentic to values or habits?"
Values are worth preserving of course - commitment to quality, customer service, employee wellbeing. These transcend specific business models. Habits are not. Like the way you've always processed orders, the meetings you've always held, the assumption that your industry works a certain way because it always has.
IKEA succeeded because they asked "How do we make furniture buying easier?" not "How do we protect our current business model?" When the answer involved AR apps, they didn't reject it because "that's not who we are."
Stop using authenticity as an excuse for cowardice.
What to Actually Measure
Most digital transformation metrics are expensive nonsense.
User Adoption Rates measure compliance, not transformation. 95% adoption rate for your new CRM whilst the sales team still keeps "real" records in spreadsheets means nothing.
Digital Revenue Percentage doesn't measure whether you're better at serving customers. Forcing customers to use your website because you closed the phone line isn't transformation - it's cost-cutting dressed up as innovation.
Training Hours Completed measures whether people sat through mandatory sessions, not whether they can do anything differently.
What you could measure instead might be:
The Possibility Test: Can you name three tasks that were impossible before and routine now? If you can't, you haven't transformed.
The Removal Test: If you removed this technology tomorrow, what capabilities would you lose? If the answer is "none" or "we'd be relieved," it's not transformation.
The Articulation Test: Can you explain why this matters in one clear sentence a 12-year-old would understand? If your explanation includes buzzwords, you don't know why you're doing it.
Everything discussed assumes technology as tool. AI represents a category shift: technology as agent (like we discussed in this article). Previous frameworks assume humans remain in control whilst technology amplifies capability. AI can make decisions, generate novel outputs, operate autonomously. This isn't Substitution or Augmentation - this might be Delegation, where humans cede decision-making to AI agents.
The questions change. Previously, we asked "How do we use this tool?" Now, we ask "How do we work alongside this agent?" Previously, we could consider, "Does this amplify human capability?" Now, it’s more like: "Does this replace human judgement?"
ChatGPT isn't a better calculator - it's a different category entirely. If AI can write essays, solve problems, and generate ideas, the question isn't "How do students use AI?" but "What should students learn if AI can do this?" Most organisations are still doing Substitution with AI - using ChatGPT to write the same emails faster. That's missing the point entirely. But we might need completely new frameworks when the AI is the primary actor, not the assistant.
Stop Calling It Transformation
It’s also about time for some linguistic honesty. Most of what we call "digital transformation" is expensive substitution, occasional augmentation, and rarely genuine redefinition. Stop saying "digital transformation." Start saying "digital tool implementation." Reserve "transformation" for when you can demonstrate Redefinition through all four integration layers.
Real transformation isn't about technology at all. It's about solving problems you couldn't solve before, creating value you couldn't create before, and working in ways you couldn't work before. The best transformations often look boring - not flashy innovation labs but deep integration of capabilities into daily work. Technology becoming invisible because it's genuinely embedded.
Ask frontline staff things like: "How is your work different now?" If they describe new tools, that's Substitution. If they describe new capabilities, that's transformation. If they describe why their work matters more, you've actually achieved something.
You're probably doing the same thing with shinier tools. That's not transformation, and it's time to stop pretending it is. The question isn't "Are we digital enough?" The question is: "Are we solving the right problems better than before?"
If the answer is no, stop calling it transformation.
Key Takeaways
- Know your SAMR level - Be brutally honest about whether you're at Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition. Most organisations are stuck at level one.
- Test all four integration layers - Technical, Process, Cultural, Strategic. If you're only addressing Technical, you're not transforming anything that matters.
- Apply the three diagnostic tests - Possibility: can you do impossible things now? Removal: would losing this technology harm your purpose? Articulation: can you explain why this matters without buzzwords?
- Distinguish values from habits - Preserve your core values, but ruthlessly question your comfortable routines. Authenticity isn't an excuse for avoiding necessary change.
- Measure transformation, not activity - User adoption rates and training hours don't prove transformation. New capabilities and impossible-made-routine do.
- Progress deliberately through SAMR - You can't skip straight to Redefinition, but you must have a roadmap to get there. Substitution is a starting point, not an end state.
- Prepare for AI as a different category - Previous frameworks assume technology as a tool. AI as an agent requires fundamentally different thinking about human role and purpose.
Genuine transformation is rare, difficult, and often unglamorous. It requires honest self-assessment, sustained commitment across all four integration layers, and the courage to acknowledge when expensive initiatives have achieved nothing beyond Substitution. But the alternative - continuing to spend millions on digital decoration whilst calling it transformation - isn't just wasteful. In an age where AI and automation are genuinely reshaping industries, organisations that mistake shinier tools for actual capability building won't just waste money. They'll become irrelevant. The choice is yours: keep congratulating yourselves for buying iPads, or start honestly assessing whether you can do anything you couldn't do before. Only one of those paths leads to survival.
Further Reading
Discover more interesting articles here.
