Which comes first, Automation or Transformation? This question is always a good test of a company’s clarity on strategy and understanding of some key terminologies when it comes to looking at the future of work and how to progress onto the new era of better, cheaper, faster, and safer as it adapts to what is now known as the 4th Industrial Revolution.
In this short article I have incorporated the various angles many of you provided to this discussion when I made a provoking post in relation to this topic earlier on this week.
To me personally, the question of whether automation or transformation comes first possesses a bit of a chicken or egg situation (which came first?).
Does transformation happen because it is forced by automation? Or does automation only happen because a transformation strategy and foundation has been laid out, allowing for automation to take place?
When you pose the question that way, it’s not so easy to answer, right? Let’s explore this further…
Before we progress any further lets clear a few “terms” up:
Automation is, in short: the mechanisation/computerisation either in part or in full of a process or task is historically done by a human in a manual form, but now it is done by a software or mechanical (“bot”) in a safe and reliable manner automatically. Primitive forms of software automation such as “excel macros”, have now progressed into RPA, Cognitive, and AI automation capabilities. Automation is more mathematical/exact/binary in its description and definition, either something is automated or it is not.
Transformation is, in short: “a thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance”. I found a business definition that stated that it is “a process of profound and radical change that orients an organization in a new direction and takes it to an entirely different level of effectiveness. Unlike ‘turnaround’ (which implies incremental progress on the same plane) transformation implies a basic change of character and little or no resemblance with the past configuration or structure”. Transformation as a definition is more vague and open to interpretation.
The argument that Transformation exists because of Automation:
The World Economic Forum has coined AI/Automation as the 4th Industrial Revolution and is characterised by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.
That’s a pretty big deal given the previous 3 revolutions were, well, truly revolutionary:
1. First Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century through the use of steam power and mechanisation of production
2. Second Industrial Revolution began in the 19th century through the discovery of electricity and assembly line production
3. Third Industrial Revolution began in the 70s in the 20th century through the use of electronics and information technology to automate production
We must not forget that Automation (as an efficiency initiative) as we know it today has in itself transformed over the years.
From being essentially lean/six sigma/process re-engineering to a new era of that, where the most efficient way in which to carry out a task or process is then automated via a bot (software or physically).
The biggest issue with the word “Transformation” as we identified earlier is that it is open to ambiguity.
The other issue that exacerbates that further is that, it takes time to truly transform (especially large/complex organisations).
If you look at the progress of transformation from day to day, month to month, or even year on year – it rarely ever looks like “profound and radical change” has actually taken place.
Therefore transformation is then a strategy/term/program that is constantly evolving, that constant change and evolution make it difficult to communicate clearly to your organisation.
Without that clear communication and connect, i.e. “because we have decided that our company objective is Y, we want X to happen by using/doing A, B, C, D by Y date, transformation, therefore, can sometimes lag behind initiatives like Automation that are providing real visible changes (some profound) within usually short spaces of time such as less than 1 year.
Do you “need” both Transformation and Automation?
Just as a transport vehicle automated humans physically walking from A to B, and it was able to do that even without proper roads in place, it still had an enormous transformation on societies/industries (that is a powerful analogy!).
Cars in this instance being “Automation”, and “Transformation” being roads/infrastructure – i.e. automation can work quite well even without Transformation as a strategy/vision/program being in place.
Essentially Transformation as a concept/movement/strategy helps prepare the company for Automation by setting in place an organisational structure that looks to maximise the benefits of Automation.
It does this while also questioning every possible setup/division/team’s positioning and purpose in the effort with the aim to enhance synergies and reduce waste/inefficiencies/overlaps in a way that better positions the company to achieve its overall main objectives and long term goals.
Automation in itself is a transformational force in the way it changes the way we work and how the company operates and should be set up, it in itself forces topics into the Transformation world/strategy that historically has not been a topic of concern.
For example, “future of work” where companies will have more “bots” than people, how should the Transformational agenda/setup of the company be set up to accommodate this change?…etc.
I think it would be fair to say that until Automation came along (and its building blocks – lean/six sigma/re-engineering and the more primitive forms of the same) transformation didn’t have a real and tangible way in which to truly transform an organisation that was truly radical in its effects and results.
Before Automation existed, Transformation was more closely described as “re-organisation” or “change management” where I would argue it was not truly transforming companies in a radical/significant way as the word “transformation” would suggest. That might touch the nerve of a few transformation leaders, apologies in advance!
Just as the analogy of the automation of transportation made earlier, (automation is the car, and transformation is the roads/infrastructure) the same goes when you question if Transformation needs Automation to work and visa versa.
Automation can work pretty well at times without Transformation either as a strategy, program, or effort, existing – again cars work on or off roads.
But if you think of Transformation as the infrastructure needed for cars to operate better, faster, and more safely at scale then with Transformation, Automation can become more effective.
To sum up…
Transformation as a term, program, and/or strategy finally has something to really drive it and break new boundaries that goes a step further than simple “change management”.
Automation has forced new discussions in terms of organisational setup, culture, and “ways of working” that helps drive the need for real strategic transformational thinking.
Companies that have a Transformation team or strategy in place will harness the full potential of Automation that will help provide a clear “road” for Automation to truly scale.
Either way, Automation is happening and its transforming organisations, with or without a clear Transformation agenda/program in place.
[…] Which comes first, Automation or Transformation? […]