“We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us”. Marshall McLuhan
For twenty years, digital transformation has been a given. Every business has engaged with it, with the conviction that technology would streamline, accelerate, and modernize. In fact, tools have piled up and workflows have been automated, without always delivering the desired results. Behind this constant acceleration, a criticism is becoming increasingly common, namely that organizations are investing heavily in technology but much less in how people work with it.
At an event I was invited to earlier this year, I met many people whose job is to support people through digital transformation in the broadest sense, and without exception, they all complained that compared to 10 or more years ago, businesses were investing less and less in this area. This is an observation that I have since heard more and more often, and I have tried to understand whether it is just a perception or if there is a tangible reality behind it.
In short:
- Businesses have invested heavily in digital technology, but little in human and organizational support, creating an imbalance between the tools available and their effective adoption.
- The results of digital transformation projects are often disappointing due to a lack of investment in training, change management, and work design.
- The “digital workplace” is perceived as a collection of inconsistent tools, far removed from the real needs of users and disconnected from their daily work.
- Traditional budgetary logic favors investment in technology, which is perceived as an asset, at the expense of human resources, which are considered an expense.
- Effective digital transformation now requires careful design of work and organizations, placing human issues at the heart of digital performance.
Huge budgets, but low human returns
The global digital workplace market is estimated to be worth $59.4 billion in 2025 (Digital Workplace Statistics 2025: See What’s Changing Fast), with spending on digital transformation reaching $2.5 trillion in the same year, according to the same source. On average, 40% of global IT budgets are absorbed by digital modernization projects, according to MyHub Intranet (145 Digital Transformation Statistics You Need To Know).
Yet these colossal sums produce very uneven results. It is a widely held perception, but the figures confirm it: only two in ten employees say they have the right digital tools to work effectively, while 71% of decision-makers say they make technology investment a priority (Decision makers and employees are increasingly at odds over technology). This discrepancy perfectly illustrates what businesses often refuse to admit: the problem is not technical but organizational and, ultimately, human.
In fact, nearly three-quarters of organizations do not get the expected value from their digital investments (Embracing new technologies to unlock human potential and organizational value). It is therefore not a question of underinvestment, but of an imbalance between what is invested in the machine and what is invested in the human capacity to take advantage of it.
And if we see that, almost without exception, businesses have one HR employee for every 60 employees and one IT employee for every 27, this is surely not a coincidence (Human capital? Less well endowed than technological capital).
A digital workplace connected to everything except work
The idea of the “digital workplace” has gradually become distorted, sometimes to the point of being completely misguided. What was supposed to be a fluid environment focused on the work experience has turned into a jumble of disparate tools that employees can’t find their way around: businesses are looking for a digitally connected workplace, but are struggling to manage the change (Organizations seek a digitally connected workplace but struggle with change management).
Change is what costs the most and is least visible. We invest in the platform, not in adoption. We finance the software, not the learning process.
I also have my own little explanation for this. There was a time when the battle for the digital workplace was raging, when there were many players, choices were sometimes difficult, and it was therefore necessary to be able to justify the choice of a particular solution after the fact, which was generally done by measuring adoption in the absence of real business metrics. But times have changed and, at least for large businesses in the office automation sector, which affects everyone, the battle has ended due to a lack of competitors, with Microsoft emerging as the undisputed winner.
Although imperfect, but how could it be otherwise when covering such a broad spectrum in heterogeneous environments, I found the Microsoft suite convincing at the time (The Digital workplace : both fragmented and integrated), but I, like most of my readers, I think, do not represent the standard user for whom all this remains very complex, even complicated.
But here’s the thing: when the choice of solution is not an issue (apart from the overlay that is added to make it digestible), there is no longer any need to justify the choice after the fact, so less is invested in promoting adoption. In any case, much less than before. And perhaps we are also betting on an increase in the digital maturity of users, which will surely come one day, given how long we have been talking about it. But since you can’t blame someone for choosing a tool when there is no choice…
This is, of course, only my theory, but I think it has played a role: in the absence of competition, the choice of tool is obvious, it becomes a commodity and no longer a major issue, and the rest follows, at least in a certain category of businesses.
The observation, in any case, is that there is a proliferation of tools that pile up without any logic of use. Employees talk about tools that “overlap” or “useless features”. The digital workplace has become, at least in the eyes of users, a technical issue, not a work tool.
An investment bias
This imbalance stems from the way businesses structure their budgets. Historically, technology was considered an investment (CAPEX): companies purchased perpetual licenses, servers, and infrastructure, the value of which could be amortized over several fiscal years. With the rise of SaaS, a growing share of these expenses has shifted to OPEX, even though the traditional licensing model still accounts for more than 30% in certain areas. However, budgeting culture has not kept pace.
In most organizations, technology is still perceived as a strategic asset, while training, work design, and change management are still considered expenses. We therefore continue to invest in what we have rather than in what we learn, an accounting and cultural bias that is all the more damaging as technology-focused businesses most often fail to transform their practices: without work on culture, leadership, and even the design of the business and work, tools do not improve anything (Digital Transformation and Organizational Change Management: Theoretical Models and Case Studies). Technology is often merely an accelerator of what already exists, amplifying the strengths or dysfunctions of the system it equips, or even imposing its own way of operating independently of the business’s intentions (How management let systems do the thinking for them).
In any case, the perception of investment in technology plays an essential role for me here. This was true in the days of ERPs (A software that helps to streamline processes ? Run away !) and it will remain true with AI: when everyone uses commoditized SaaS platforms, implemented in the same way with the same “best practices” by the same providers, your IT will no longer be a competitive factor (AI will not create a competitive advantage). What changes is why, how, and with what intention we use it, provided that the system does not take precedence over the intention by preventing its translation into work practices.
When work design becomes urgent
However, certain signs (weak but very real) indicate a gradual shift in the issues at stake. The market is now talking about Digital Employee Experience (DEX) and, more recently, business design (EDGY: a common language for aligning identity, experience, and operations). In other words, the idea that digital performance depends on the quality of work design and operations before it is a question of technology.
As InAir Space points out, “Amidst all this technology, the most important trends and opportunities are human.” (Trends and Opportunities in Using Digital Technology in the Workplace: A New Era of Productivity). The current challenges no longer lie in stacking up tools, but in the ability to draw a coherent, controlled experience that is aligned with the business’s mission.
This means restoring management to its primary role: designing the context in which work is organized and takes place (Manager, c’est designer). Managers and executives are not (or should not be) mere users of tools; they are the designers of the system in which these tools make sense.
When work design becomes urgent
However, certain signs (weak but very real) indicate a gradual shift in the issues at stake. The market is now talking about Digital Employee Experience (DEX) and, more recently, business design (EDGY: a common language to align identity, experience, and operations). In other words, the idea that digital performance depends on the quality of work design and operations before it is a question of technology.
As InAir Space points out, “Amidst all this technology, the most critical trends and opportunities are human“. (Trends and Opportunities in Using Digital Technology in the Workplace: A New Era of Productivity). The current challenges no longer lie in stacking up tools, but in the ability to draw a coherent, controlled experience that is aligned with the business’s mission.
This means restoring management to its primary role: designing the context in which work is organized and takes place (To manage is to design). Managers and executives are not (or should not be) mere users of tools : they are the designers of the system in which these tools make sense.
Bottom Line
For a long time, it was believed that equipping employees was enough to transform a business, but most indicators show the opposite: without support, technology does not create efficiency, engaged, or collective learning.
Organizations that truly want to modernize the way they work must shift the focus of their investments from technology to work itself.
Because in the end, efficiency does not come from tools, but from the intention behind them (Taking back control of enterprise design: intention before tools).
To answer your questions…
Businesses invest mainly in technology, but little in how to work with it. The problem is not technical, but human and organizational. Without support, training, or reflection on the work, tools amplify existing dysfunctions. To achieve results, budgets must be balanced between technology and skills development.
Historically, technology has been viewed as a strategic asset, while training and change management have been perceived as expenses. This accounting bias pushes businesses to buy tools rather than invest in learning. As a result, many spend money, but few actually transform their practices.
Instead of simplifying work, the digital workplace has become a jumble of complex and poorly integrated tools. Employees struggle to find their way around, due to a lack of support for adoption. Businesses have focused on technology rather than usage. To be effective, it must once again be centered on needs and work practices.
Managers must not only use the tools, but also design the context in which work is organized. They are the ones who align culture, processes, and technologies. Rethinking digital transformation means restoring management’s role as designers of work, not mere users.
Businesses are shifting from a technology-driven approach to one focused on employee experience (DEX) and enterprise design. The goal is no longer to add tools, but to create a consistent and human work experience. Digital success now depends on the quality of work, not just the power of platforms.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
