{"id":45047,"date":"2025-01-14T09:00:36","date_gmt":"2025-01-14T08:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sqorus.com\/?p=45047"},"modified":"2025-04-08T13:48:43","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T11:48:43","slug":"ai-digital-transformation-evolution-or-revolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sqorus.com\/en\/ai-digital-transformation-evolution-or-revolution\/","title":{"rendered":"AI and digital transformation: evolution or revolution for organizations?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”0px|0px|0px|0px” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”0px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ custom_padding=”||5%||false|false” inline_fonts=”Roboto” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

Many people today associate the digital transformation of organizations with the use of artificial intelligence<\/strong> (AI<\/strong>), inducing a sense of the inevitability of “disruption”.<\/p>\n

This perception needs to be qualified. In reality, the contribution of historical AIs<\/strong> and their recent generative cousins to the digital transformation of organizations<\/strong> can be seen as “incremental”.<\/p>\n

Between gradual evolution and technological revolution<\/strong>, what’s the way forward? Is the integration of AI<\/strong> into the digital transformation<\/a> of organizations really the much heralded point of no return?<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.0″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” inline_fonts=”Roboto” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

AI and digital transformation: disruption or rupture<\/h2>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” inline_fonts=”Roboto” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

The foundations of disruption according to Christensen<\/h3>\n

Disruption was popularized by Clayton Christensen in his book “The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail<\/a>” (1997). It’s a process whereby radical innovations disrupt established markets.<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” inline_fonts=”Roboto” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”]<\/p>\n

Reality on the ground: between myth and pragmatism<\/h3>\n

But this disruptive tidal wave doesn’t always happen; the “disruptive everything” we’ve already seen in training innovation<\/a> is actually more of a received idea. The contribution of AI<\/strong> in general has been more wisely and pragmatically welcomed by a number of players in the retail, freight and hotel industries (Galeries Lafayette, Maersk, Accor) as a tool for anticipating and modernizing in the face of global market changes, rather than as a means of radically transforming existing models.<\/p>\n

2021: Facebook positions itself as a pioneer of metavers, renaming the Group “Meta”, and suffers a notable setback. The change of identity, followed more by announcements than real proposals and actions, (almost) nipped Metavers<\/a> and its developments in the bud. This new christening was confined to the event, and prolonged Facebook’s historic positioning: to be the first. A good hook, certainly, but insufficient in this case.<\/p>\n

Christensen emphasizes that disruption is a process, not an event. Mr. Zuckerberg’s teams clearly lacked the monitoring and application of this process, confronting them with the innovator’s dilemma, a dilemma in which “the incumbent player is torn between two equally losing choices: defend his historic business, at the risk of compromising his future if he ignores the potential of disruption, or bet on it at the risk of compromising his historic business, without being certain that disruption will result in a market<\/em>” (P. Silberzhan).<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ custom_padding=”||5%||false|false” hover_enabled=”0″ inline_fonts=”Roboto” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

The Meta case<\/h3>\n

In the “Meta” case:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. No radical change in business model for the Californian giant.<\/li>\n
  2. We can also assume that the prospective work (Durance) on the theme was lacking, at least in completeness (Imagining possible futures, examining weak and strong signals, creating scenarios to develop one and integrate it into the roadmap).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Lastly, it’s hard to imagine how Garel & Mock’s C-K (Concept – Knowledge) theory could be put into practice: aided by Open Innovation, C-K is defined in terms of four basic notions: expansion, partition, concepts and knowledge.<\/p>\n

    The design process is formalized by a back-and-forth movement between two different spaces [historically separate spaces]:<\/p>\n