If you’ve spent any amount of time around digital transformation, change management, consulting, or enterprise software, you’ve probably heard the phrase “people, process, and technology” more times than you can count. The framework has become so common that it is often treated as a checklist. Need to improve performance? Buy a new technology. Then adjust the process and train the people.

The problem is that it rarely works that way.

In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons so many transformation initiatives struggle is because people have misunderstood what “people, process, and technology” was supposed to mean in the first place. The framework is often presented as three separate buckets that need to be addressed. The reality is that they are interconnected. Change one, and you inevitably impact the others.

How people, process, and technology came about

Many years ago, organizational theorist Harold Leavitt introduced what became known as the Diamond Model. Interestingly, the model wasn’t people, process, and technology at all. It consisted of people, technology, structure, and tasks. Over time, practitioners and consultants merged tasks and structure into a broader concept of process, producing the familiar triad: people, process, and technology.

More importantly, the model wasn’t intended to be a project checklist. It was intended to demonstrate interdependence. That’s a very different idea.

The problem with checklist thinking is that it tends to start with technology. A company buys a new platform. Then management tries to redesign processes around it. Then, employees are asked to adapt. Sometimes that works. Often it doesn’t.

The reason is simple. Organizations are full of feedback loops.

Understand what’s behind the status quo before you change it

People develop habits. Processes evolve around those habits. Incentives reinforce those processes. Technology gets configured around the way people actually work rather than the way management thinks they work. Then someone introduces a new system and wonders why adoption is slow.

The reality is that most organizations are perfectly optimized for their current results. In other words, if you want different results, the first question should not be “What technology do we need?” The first question should be “What problem are we trying to solve?” That sounds obvious, but surprisingly few transformation efforts start there.

What does success actually look like, and what would the ideal future state be? And perhaps most importantly, what is the solution that requires the least amount of effort while delivering the majority of the benefit? I have found that asking those questions often leads to very different conclusions.

Breaking down what really matters among people, process, and technology

Take the process, for example. Most people dislike the process. In many organizations, process exists because someone encountered a problem years ago and introduced a rule to prevent it from happening again. Then another problem emerged, and another rule was added. Before long, the process itself becomes the problem.

The goal shouldn’t be to create more processes.

The goal should be to create the lowest-friction process possible while still achieving the desired outcome. People naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance or the “desire path”. A desire path is an informal route created when people repeatedly choose a more convenient or intuitive path or process than the one officially designed. For example, when a dirt track is worn across a lawn by people repeatedly taking a shortcut instead of following a paved sidewalk. Urban planners and architects often study desire paths because they reveal how people actually behave, as opposed to how designers expect them to behave. Some planners even wait to see where desire paths emerge before installing permanent walkways.

Technology should be approached the same way.

Technology vendors are very good at convincing organizations that they need more technology. Before evaluating solutions, I find it useful to ask a different question. If you had a magic button that completely solved your problem, what would it do? Only after defining that answer should you start looking at software. Otherwise, you risk buying capabilities that look impressive in a demo but do little to address the problem you actually have. For example, is it more important that you make it from point A to point B in the least amount of time, or that you follow a beautifully designed walk path, however inefficient it may be at reaching your destination?

People are the final piece.

Whenever a new process or technology is introduced, someone has to adapt. Sometimes that means training, sometimes it means hiring different skill sets, and sometimes it means redesigning responsibilities. But regardless of the approach, success ultimately comes down to whether the people involved can realistically operate in the future state you’re trying to create.

Moving to a new, fresh view of interdependence and incentives

Perhaps a better framework today is not people, process, and technology at all.

Perhaps it is interdependence and incentives. Start by understanding how work is actually getting done today. Look for the feedback loops that are keeping current behaviors in place. Then examine the incentives.

  • Who benefits from the current process?
  • Who is avoiding risk?
  • Who is saving time?
  • Who is doing what is easiest?

Let us face it, most organizational problems are not the result of bad intentions. More often than not, people are simply responding rationally to the environment around them.

If you fail to understand those dynamics, changing the technology won’t change much at all.

But if you understand the interdependencies and incentives first, the right process, technology, and organizational changes often become much easier to identify.