Organisations invest considerable time and resources in digital transformation strategies: defining future states, selecting technologies, redesigning processes and constructing implementation roadmaps. Underlying much of this activity is a familiar assumption: decide where the organisation needs to go, develop a plan, and then execute it.
Yet digital transformation rarely unfolds so neatly.
Technologies evolve, priorities shift, employees challenge proposed ways of working, new requirements emerge, and developments inside and outside the organisation reshape what is possible.
In our research, we argue that such departures from the original plan should not necessarily be understood as implementation failures. Rather, they reveal something fundamental about the nature of digital transformation.
Digital transformation is not simply a journey from one predefined organisational state to another. It is better understood as a continuous flow of intertwined actions through which technologies, organisational arrangements, interests and possibilities evolve.
Following transformation as it actually unfolds
To understand this process, we followed two digital transformation storylines over time: one within a manufacturing firm over nine years, and another across multiple organisations through a public-sector technology user community.
Rather than treating transformation as a bounded implementation project, we traced how decisions, interactions and activities unfolded across time and organisational boundaries.
What we saw was not a neat sequence of strategy, implementation and outcome.
Instead, transformation unfolded through multiple streams of action flowing across the organisation and its wider environment - converging, diverging and interacting in ways that continually reshaped its course. Some streams reinforced one another, others competed, and seemingly minor developments sometimes became unexpectedly consequential.
We refer to these streams as lines of action. This shifts attention away from transformation as a fixed project and towards the ongoing interactions through which its direction - and future possibilities - emerge.
Three lines of action shape digital transformation
Our analysis identifies three forms of action that help explain how digital transformation unfolds: inscribing, mobilising and orchestrating lines of action.
1. Inscribing lines of action: Different visions of the future
Inscribing lines of action are attempts to shape where transformation should go, through strategies, plans, technological designs and established ways of working.
But there is rarely only one vision of the future.
In the manufacturing firm we studied, the wider programme sought greater integration, while one digitally advanced department wanted to preserve practices it regarded as an important organisational capability.
This was not simply support versus resistance. It reflected competing ideas about what should change, what should remain, and what transformation should achieve.
Digital transformation therefore does not simply move towards a predefined future. That future is itself shaped and contested as transformation unfolds.
2. Mobilising lines of action: Bringing different directions together
Mobilising lines of action bring different priorities into alignment through negotiation, mediation, experimentation and other forms of interaction.
In our manufacturing case, disagreement between the transformation programme and the department led to a revised system that preserved important existing practices while still advancing wider integration.
The interesting point is that changing direction was not necessarily a failure of transformation. It was transformation.
Transformation progressed not by rigidly following the original plan, but by bringing different interests, practices and possibilities into a workable relationship.
3. Orchestrating lines of action: Connecting transformation across organisations
Orchestrating lines of action connect transformation across organisational boundaries.
In our public-sector case, organisations using the same technology formed a user community to share problems, develop requirements and engage collectively with the vendor. Ideas and solutions moved through this network, with local developments becoming part of wider technological and organisational change.
Organisational transformations can therefore be understood as interconnected streams, with developments in one organisation flowing into and reshaping those of others.
Together, these three lines of action show transformation as multiple streams that interact, align and redirect one another, rather than the straightforward execution of a single plan.
Transformation happens through transitional moments
When different lines of action converge, periods of relative stability can emerge: a system becomes operational, a disagreement is resolved, or a temporary solution becomes workable. We describe these periods as transitional moments within a continuing flow of transformation.
Some last briefly; others persist for years. But they leave traces. Technologies, relationships, routines, compromises, knowledge and unresolved tensions are carried forward and encounter new streams of action.
This challenges the idea of digital transformation as a series of neatly bounded projects with clear beginnings and endings.
Transformation does not (re)start from a clean slate. Its streams carry forward traces of what came before, which combine with new developments and continually reshape what comes next.
Three implications for leaders
This way of thinking about digital transformation has several implications for organisations and those responsible for leading change.
1. Treat transformation strategies as interventions in an evolving process, rather than scripts for a predetermined future.
Strategies and roadmaps remain important. Organisations need direction, investment priorities and mechanisms through which collective action can be coordinated.
But a transformation strategy should not be confused with the transformation itself.
Our findings suggest that successful transformation may sometimes require organisations to depart from their original assumptions as new knowledge, technological possibilities and organisational tensions emerge, creating new possibilities for value generation.
The important managerial question is therefore not simply: “Are we still following the roadmap?”
It is also: “What are we learning through transformation that should prompt us to revise the roadmap?”
2. Pay attention to the organisational work through which alignment is produced.
Transformation is often associated with highly visible activities: technology procurement, programme governance, strategic decisions and major implementation milestones.
Our research draws attention to activities that receive much less attention: Meetings; Negotiations; Experiments; Informal conversations; Communities of practice; Acts of mediation; Attempts to translate the concerns of one organisational group to another.
These are not peripheral to transformation. They are among the forms of organisational work through which transformation is given direction.
This suggests that leadership should not focus exclusively on identifying the person who will drive transformation and more about creating the relationships, spaces and processes through which change can emerge.
The question is therefore: “Are we creating the organisational conditions that allow different streams of action to come together productively?”
3. Recognise the value of temporary and incomplete outcomes.
Organisations understandably want transformation initiatives to deliver clear outcomes and measurable benefits.
Was the system successfully implemented? Did the programme achieve its objectives? Did the investment generate the expected value?
A flow perspective, however, encourages a longer and more dynamic view of both value generation and evaluation.
A technological solution may create value for a period before being replaced. A compromise may keep different streams of transformation moving and open up possibilities that were not initially anticipated. An experiment that falls short of its original objective may generate knowledge, capabilities or relationships that enable new forms of value to emerge later.
From this perspective, value is not generated only at the end of a transformation initiative. It can emerge progressively as different lines of action interact, recombine and create new possibilities.
This also has implications for how transformation is evaluated. Organisations often place considerable emphasis on summative evaluation: assessing whether objectives were achieved, benefits realised and investments justified. These questions remain important, but a flow perspective also highlights the value of formative evaluation throughout the transformation process. Formative evaluation can help organisations recognise emerging value, identify where different lines of action are converging or creating tensions, and learn when assumptions, priorities or approaches may need to change. Evaluation therefore becomes not only a means of judging transformation, but also a way of learning from and shaping it as it unfolds.
The significance of a particular development may therefore lie not only in the immediate benefits it delivers, but also in the learning it generates and the new pathways for value creation that it opens up.
The question is therefore not only: “Did this transformation deliver what we expected?”
But also: “What new forms of value are emerging as transformation unfolds, including those we did not initially anticipate?”
Looking Beyond the Transformation Plan
Transformation therefore requires more than adherence to a predefined roadmap. It requires leaders to stay attentive to how different streams of action are unfolding, and to where new possibilities for value are emerging.
The question is not simply: “How do we keep our digital transformation on plan?”
But: “How do we recognise where transformation is flowing - and help steer it towards value generation?”
Source
Mozaffar, H. & Candi, M. (2025), Extending the process frontier of digital transformation: A flow-oriented perspective, Information Systems Journal, 35(2), 720–760. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12557.