=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2574/short10
|storemode=property
|title=Introduction to the Digital Transformation Lifecycle (short paper)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2574/short10.pdf
|volume=Vol-2574
|authors=Mark von Rosing,Georg Etzel
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/vmbo/RosingE20a
}}
==Introduction to the Digital Transformation Lifecycle (short paper)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2574/short10.pdf
Introduction to The Digital Transformation Lifecycle
Mark von Rosing 1, Georg Etzel2
1
The Global University Alliance, www.globaluniversityalliance.org
2
LEADing Practice, Enterprise Modelling, www.leadingpractice.com
mvr@globaluniversityalliance.org
ge@leadingpractice.com
Abstract. The ability of existing Digital Transformation concepts, to analyze the digi-
tal transformation potential, design concepts and execute them within organizations
has an alarmingly poor historical track record. Based on the long-standing research
work of Global University Alliance (GUA) and its members, a Digital Transfor-
mation Lifecycle is introduced. The Digital Transformation Lifecycle, underpinned by
ontology, semiotics and pattern recognition, incorporates all the constructs that can be
found in the most popular Digital Transformation concepts and frameworks. It
demonstrates the value of the underlying enterprise ontology and describes the rela-
tionship between enterprise meta model, the Digital Transformation Lifecycle and
various artefacts used around Digital Transformation work. The paper concludes with
future scope and application that lies ahead for the Digital Transformation Lifecycle.
Keywords:
Digital Transformation Challenges, Digital Transformation Lifecycle, Digital Trans-
formation Meta Objects, Digital Transformation Artefacts, Digital Transformation Se-
miotics, Business Ontology, Enterprise Ontology, Digital Transformation Framework
1 Introduction
There are numerable lifecycle concepts in existence that are used across a wide range
of topics in an organization – these span from Product Lifecycle Management [1],
Strategy Lifecycle [2], Process Lifecycle [3], Application Lifecycle [4], Software
Lifecycle [5], IT Service Lifecycle [6], Data Lifecycle [7] to Infrastructure Lifecycle
[8]. These lifecycles have been put in place, to manage and track changes across the
specific concept that evolves over time. Whenever there are multiple changes happen-
ing throughout the phases of the lifespan, a lifecycle concept could be applied [3, 2].
The question therefore emerges, why there is no lifecycle concept for Digital Trans-
formation? Similar to other lifecycles, Digital Transformation equally evolves over
time as it passes through its evolutionary phases, such as initial analysis to design and
execution till on-going improvement. The challenge of taking your Digital Transfor-
mation through initial strategy analysis, design through to execution has been well
documented [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. In fact, there has been an overwhelming rate of strat-
egy execution and transformation failure reported within the last two decades [9, 10].
After years of McKinsey research on organizational transformations (2011-2012), the
results from the latest McKinsey Global Survey (2018) on the topic confirm a long-
92
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
standing trend: few executives say their companies’ transformations succeeded. To-
day, just 26 percent of respondents say their digital transformations, have been suc-
cessful at both improving performance and equipping the organization to sustain im-
provements over time [9]. According to Sarvari, Ustundag, Cevikcan, Kaya, Cebi [14]
the market is already now confused on what to use, how to use it and how it all fits to-
gether. Prisecaru even argues that the many different Digital Transformation frame-
works, methods and approaches lead to more confusion and misunderstanding than
they support transformation [15].
This paper positions itself around addressing these challenges and more through intro-
ducing the Digital Transformation Lifecycle. This consists of four distinct overall
stages: Understand, Innovate, Transform, Continuously Improve. The paper starts
with providing a summary how the Digital Transformation Lifecycle addresses the
discussed gaps. This is followed by an overview of the Digital Transformation Lifecy-
cle, its purpose, relevance to Digital Transformation and its compatibility with enter-
prise Digital Transformation regardless of industry. The Digital Transformation
Framework fully integrated into the Lifecycle follows with examples of how Digital
Transformation artefacts are related. The extent of the model is then presented with its
embedded ontology and semiotics followed by the conclusion which summarizes the
validity and highlights the future work surrounding this area.
2 Overview of the Digital Transformation Lifecycle
The gaps in the existing Digital Transformation landscape have just been discussed
and how there is a need to work with a lifecycle perspective. What we need is to man-
age the entire Digital Transformation Lifecycle, from the Understand Phase, where
one should understand the emerging trends, disruptive forces, customer needs as to
develop a fitting direction i.e. strategy with related objectives and plans. To the Inno-
vate Phase, where the goal is to create new customer value, through value added ser-
vices or products. Once you move to the Transformation Phase, without having inno-
vated, then you will typically ‘get a lot more digital (which is all about the latest tech-
nology) but achieve very little transformation’. Which is the reason that nearly ¾ of
all the digital transformation initiatives fail to deliver their actual business value, re-
sulting in substantial economic and productivity losses of $3 trillion, which corre-
sponds to 4.7 % of global GDP [9]. What we need to understand is the magnitude of
(opportunity) cost incurred and failed value realization in organizations. With their
digital transformation, most organizations never get to the Continuous Improvement
Phase, where the value realization is optimized and/or improved. A lifecycle ap-
proach is needed, as it is an instrument to represent the course of developmental
changes through which an enterprise or organization evolves in order to actually
transform its digital capabilities during its lifetime. Both in terms of evolution but also
changes as it passes through different digital transformation phases during its lifetime
existence. As illustrated in figure 1, the four distinct lifecycle stages (Understand, In-
novate, Transform, Continuously Improve) help guide the practitioners to work with
the Digital Transformation concepts and capabilities during its development phases
and lifespan.
93
Fig. 1 Overview of the Digital Transformation Lifecycle
The Digital Transformation Lifecycle thereby consists of a set of phases in which
each phase is interlinked with the previous one. It provides a highly useful sequence
of phases and steps that any Digital Transformation practitioner, executive, business
analyst, business architect as well as transformation expert can follow, regardless of
industry or size of organization. The proposed Digital Transformation Lifecycle con-
cepts are interlinked between each other. And they can also be combined with any
kind of other lifecycle thinking, such as strategy-, product-, service-, process-, appli-
cation- or enterprise architecture lifecycle [16]. The possibility to integrate lifecycle
thinking, helps align all involved stakeholders to focus on the key activities of each
phase in the critical digital transformation aspects of business, information and tech-
nology. This on the one hand supports the digital transformation execution but can
also help with the other phases i.e. analysis, design, etc., of the Digital Transformation
Lifecycle. What is also worth commenting is the necessity of continuous improve-
ment that facilitates the feedback loop in a systematic approach, where depending on
the degree of change it can help an organization optimize its underlying digital trans-
formation concepts, solutions, initiatives and activities to achieve more effective and
efficient results.
3 Overview of the Digital Transformation Framework
When a practitioner or organization decides to use the Digital Transformation Lifecy-
cle to lay the foundation of their Digital Transformation way of working; all experts
and employees across the organizational boundaries of the enterprise, now have a
shared way of thinking and agile way of working with Digital Transformation over its
lifecycle. This creates in turn a common understanding and consensus within the or-
ganization, which immediately increases the level of Digital Transformation maturity.
Further, the application of the lifecycle to Digital Transformation allows the agile
mapping of relevant any relevant components such as value drivers, risk, organiza-
tional competencies, owners as well as the specification of activities needed for each
Digital Transformation phase to happen and create value. Figure 2 is thus an illustra-
tion of the Digital Transformation Framework that is fully integrated into the Digital
Transformation Lifecycle phases and builds on top of it. You will notice that the indi-
vidual steps are not linear and interlinked, this is due to the fact that this is not a wa-
terfall approach. This should be viewed as an agile on-demand concept, that depend-
ing on your specific situation, different components and thereby steps matter.
94
Therefore, all these different Digital Transformation Framework building blocks
could/should more be seen as steps you can do with a specific Digital Transformation
Lifecycle phase. Enabling an organization to choose its optimal approaches over the
lifecycle based on the components required to overcome a specific challenge. Due to
space limitation of this paper, we will only illustrate the most relevant building blocks
involved:
Fig. 2. Overview of The Digital Transformation Framework
What can be seen is that the Digital Transformation Framework with its Building
Blocks, is sorted according to the Digital Transformation lifecycle phases and stages,
empowering a user according to the agile concept to apply the needed building block.
95
As can be seen in figure 2 there are letters and numbers in the various building blocks
that facilitate the usage of the correct artefacts [17] as well as the appropriate innova-
tion and/or transformation concepts. Typical artefacts used in these phases are speci-
fied in figure 2 as letters i.e. A: Forces Model, B: Drivers Model, C: Strategy Map,
etc. Obviously, other artefacts could be used in the various phases, such as a Stake-
holder Map or Integrated Planning Model. However, some organizations will not de-
velop any artefacts for the defined steps but rather, work through them in a workshop
fashion. Therefore, we have included the most common examples.
4 How the Digital Transformation Lifecycle builds on existing
Ontology
An ontology is an intentional semantic structure that encodes the set of objects and
terms that are presumed to exist in some area of interest (i.e. the universe of discourse
or semantic domain), the relationships that hold among them and the implicit rules con-
straining the structure of this (piece of) reality [18, 19]. In the context of the Digital
Transformation Lifecycle, we have used ontology and semantics which are an aspect
of semiotics, like syntax, to distinguish valid from invalid symbol structures, and like
pragmatics, it relates symbols to their meaning within a context e.g., the community in
which they are shared [20]. Ontologies can be categorized and classified according to
several criteria (e.g., context, structure, etc.) [21]. When ontologies are classified ac-
cording to their universe of discourse, we distinguish foundational, domain, task and
application ontologies [21, 22]. The Enterprise Ontology [23] will be used as the foun-
dational ontology, which was the basis to provide a source and center to pick which
enterprise ontology meta objects [23] would be relevant, share and reuse meaning
across all the various building block concepts portrayed in the Digital Transformation
Framework. The meta objects and their notations (symbols) have been used as the basis
and structure for the digital transformation building blocks (see figure 2). As described
by von Rosing and Laurier [23] the enterprise ontology defines basic notions like en-
terprise objects, relations, structure, arrangements and so on. As the Digital Transfor-
mation Lifecycle concept has the ambition to cover all the aspects of Digital Transfor-
mation relevant components i.e. from strategy, organizational perspectives as well as
information and technology relevant components i.e. application data, platform and
technology. The following Enterprise Ontology theories where chosen (see figure 3):
1. The Enterprise Ontology is used as the foundational ontology. In combination with
the foundational ontology, the task ontologies, specifically the Lifecycle Ontology
will be applied. With the Lifecycle Ontology it also has a link to the Innovation &
Transformation Ontology.
2. Through the foundational ontology there is a built-in link to the core reference on-
tology, where the business, information and technology layer can be applied in the
Digital Transformation structure.
3. Through the foundational ontology there is a built-in link to the domain ontology,
where the value, capability, service, process, application, data, platform and infra-
structure ontology can be applied in the Digital Transformation structure.
96
Figure 3. The link between the Digital Transformation Lifecycle concept and the Enter-
prise Ontology
There is academic proof that the approach of using integrated ontologies to develop
new ontologies or concept is valid. For example, Fonseca et al. [24] describes a foun-
dational ontology of geographic objects which was used as a structure to integrate var-
ious measure to evaluate the interoperability. This created new concepts and a domain
ontology, which interlinked to the former higher-level ontology. Roussey furthermore
argues [25] that the core reference ontologies, domain and task ontologies based on the
same foundational ontology, can be more easily integrated to form a new ontology. This
approach has also been applied to develop LEADing Practice standards where ‘the En-
terprise Ontology [23] was used to develop Enterprise Standards’[26]. As illustrated in
figure 3, this approach was also applied in this research. The approach should be pos-
sible, since Zachman et al [21] argue that the foundational Enterprise Ontology is ap-
plicable to any type of organization, independent of complexity or industry.
5 Conclusion:
The Digital Transformation Lifecycle provides a truly interlinked agile approach from
the notion of digital strategy to the Digital Transformation execution. The underlying
ontology and semiotics allow us to take any organizational Digital Transformation
challenge and integrate it into the Digital Transformation Lifecycle way of working
and modelling regardless of industry type. The Digital Transformation Lifecycle is
based upon an empiric ontology, meaning that its roots lie in both practice and re-
search. Consequently, it covers all aspects of the Digital Transformation phases.
Some of the gaps discussed in the theory can therefore be fulfilled with the Digital
Transformation Lifecycle approach and thereby help improve the currently high fail-
ure rate in industry. The related Digital Transformation Framework is designed to be
an agile method, which is vendor neutral/agnostic and it can therefore be used with
97
most existing approaches that have any of the identified Digital Transformation build-
ing-blocks. Due to the limitations placed on this paper we were only able to demon-
strate a brief overview of its usefulness. The Digital Transformation Lifecycle with its
related Digital Transformation Framework can be used as described, in order to attain
the desired level of completeness, track and manage changes over time or identify
possible approaches based on the individual steps to overcome a specific transfor-
mation challenge. Further, it is complemented with elicitation support such as guiding
principles for creating, interpreting, analyzing and using Digital Transformation engi-
neering, modelling or architecture concepts within the Digital Transformation Lifecy-
cle. In future publications this will be extended to evidence deeper insights into as-
pects such as Digital Transformation ontology and semantics, Digital Transformation
architecture and multiple agile modelling disciplines such as value-, revenue-, perfor-
mance- or service modelling.
References
1. Sääksvuori A, Immonen A. Product Lifecycle Management. Volume 1, 1st ed. Ber-
lin: Springer; 2008.
2. Caine, J., von Rosing, M., (2018) Overview of the Strategy LifeCycle, Springer
3. von Rosing M, Scheer A, Scheel H. The Complete Business Process Handbook. 1st
ed. Waltham, Massachusetts: Morgan Kaufmann; 2015.
4. Aiello B, Sachs L. Agile Application Lifecycle Management. 1st ed. Boston, M.A.:
Addison-Wesley Professional; 2016.
5. Langer A. Guide To Software Development. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer; 2017.
6. Van Bon, Jan; Verheijen, Tieneke (2006), Frameworks for IT Management, Van
Haren Publishing, ISBN 978-90-77212-90-5
7. Hayes H. Integrated Data Management: Managing data across its lifecycle.
Ibm.com. Published 2019.
8. W. Ronald Hudson, Ralph Haas, Waheed Uddin (1997). Infrastructure Manage-
ment: Integrating Design, Construction, Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Renovation,
McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
9. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-to-
beat-the-transformation-odds, retrieved 13 January 2020
10. Cândido C., Santos S.: Strategy implementation (2015) What is the failure rate?
21, 237-262.
11. Carucci R. (2017) Executives fail to execute Strategy because They’re too inter-
nally focused. https://hbr.org/2017/11/executives-fail-to-execute- Strategy -because-
theyre-too-internally-focused.
12. Mellat-Parast M., Golmohammadi D., Mcfadden K.L., Miller J.W. (2015) Linking
business strategy to service failures and financial performance: Empirical evidence
from the U.S. domestic airline industry. J.Oper.Manage. 38, 14-24.
98
13. Smith R.R. (2013) The reality test: still relying on Strategy?. London: Profile
Books, London.
14. Sarvari, Ustundag, Cevikcan, Kaya, Cebi (2018), Industry 4.0: Managing The
Digital Transformation, Springer
15. Prisecaru P. Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. P57-62. In:
Knowledge Horizons - Economics. vol. 8, issue 1; 2016.
16. Rosing M.v.: The complete business process handbook body of knowledge from
process modeling to bpm. Volume I. Amsterdam : Elsevier, Amsterdam (2014).
17. von Rosing M., Urquhart B., Zachman J. (2015) Using a business ontology for
structuring artefacts: Example - Northern Health. International Journal of Conceptual
Structures and Smart Applications, 3, 42-85.
18. Genesereth M. R., Nilsson N.J. (1987) Logical foundations of artificial. 58.
19. Giaretta P., Guarino N. (1995) Ontologies and knowledge bases towards a termi-
nological clarification. 25, 307-317
20. Cordeiro J., Filipe J. (2004) The semiotic pentagram framework--A perspective on
the use of semiotics within organisational semiotics..
21. von Rosing, M., Zachman, J. (2017). The Need for a Role Ontology. International
Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications. Volume 5, Issue 1
22. Guarino N. (1997). Semantic matching: Formal ontological distinctions for infor-
mation organization, extraction, and integration. 139-170
23. von Rosing, M., & Laurier, W. (2015). An Introduction to the Business Ontology.
International Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart Applications, 3(1), 20–41.
doi:10.4018/IJCSSA.2015010102
24. Fonseca, F., Camara, G., & Monteiro, A., M., (2006) A Framework for Measur-
ing the Interoperability of Geo-Ontologies, Journal Spatial Cognition & Computation,
An Interdisciplinary Journal, Volume 6,Issue 4, Pages 309-331
25. Roussey, C., Pinet, F., Ah Kang, M., and Corcho, O., (2011) Ontologies in Urban
Development Projects, Edited by Falquet, G.: Metral, C., Teller. J., Tweed, C., Chap-
ter 2, An Introduction to Ontologies and Ontology Engineering, Springer
26. von Rosing, M., & von Scheel, H. (2016). Using the Business Ontology to de-
velop Enterprise Standards. International Journal of Conceptual Structures and Smart
Applications, 4(1), 48–70. doi:10.4018/IJCSSA.2016010103
99