TECHNOLOGIES ARE NOT DISRUPTORS (EVOLVING THINKING IS)

I went for a walk in the morning.

And while walking, I was forced to ponder where spring actually disappeared to here in Vantaa. It was cold, it snowed, the sun hid, and the wind was brisk (and I was dressed far too lightly). And there in the cold, I also pondered things other than the lost spring!  

During the last few months, I've been thinking particularly hard about the system one could call 'Organization'. And I think about it as a whole system, not as a box description representing the manifestation of power and decision-making, but as a system where humans operate and which has some Meaning, towards which we strive together.

I think about how the cardinal sin of different 'Organizations' almost repeatedly turns out to be seeing it as pieces, functions, parts, and the sum of its parts, and not as a System (and an organization as a System is never, ever the sum of its parts, never). An organization as a System is always a network of different functions, information, understanding, and interaction, whose output is not determined by its individual parts and pieces and its functions, but by their operation together, anchored to a common purpose, meaning, and value base. I.e., individual parts of the System can be perfectly functioning, wonderful entities, creating great products and services, and be internally logical and coherent, but the end result can be chaotic, full of problems, and require a huge amount of coordination, constant adjustment, and quick fixes.

There's a reason why phrases like 'siloization', 'resistance to change', and e.g., 'technical debt' are repeated in working life. And there are plenty of these phrases, whose root causes are built-in and for whose correction it's so easily demanded that only others change and adapt, and almost secretly and stealthily, according to the solution logic of Tayloristic thinking, the longing for a Strong Leader arises (because someone has to decide what is changed, when, and how). And this narrative of leadership is also just a symptom, not a solution.  

When the system isn't working, it's worth pausing for a moment and asking, for example:

1. Upon which values of humanity have we built our organization and power structures?  

2. Based on which thinking model have we built our entire idea of the organization and its way of producing value?  

3. Do we trust our people?  

4. Do we focus on controlling the execution ('How') or do we focus on understanding what we do and why ('Why')?  

5. Is our narrative focused on 'efficiency' or 'impact'?  

   
   

When the system is seen as a puzzle where actions and interactions are functionalized into their own operations, the focus shifts, as if by natural law, to their own ways, tools, technology, and technical outputs, own goals, own boundaries, and own models of doing.  

Even human brains can contain the very best parts offered by evolution and perfect brain chemistry, but even a single break between its parts can cause complete dysfunction. So: when you fix the brain, you fix the system. When you fix the thinking, you fix the organization!

So, there are reasons why the most effective approach for creating the ’Organization’, involves fundamentally rethinking and reshaping the System itself, guided by the answers to those 'tough questions' about our purpose, beliefs, and ways of working. This means creating, designing, and tailoring the System from within, involving and empowering all your staff who live and breathe its reality daily. Adaptability, therefore, cannot be successfully imported as a pre-packaged, plug-and-play solution based on someone else’s experiences or context. Designing adaptability is an inherently unpredictable, tailor-made challenge specific to your unique system. Trying to bring adaptability to your organization using generic, certified tools, methods, and frameworks often fails precisely because:

• Lack of Contextual Fit.  External solutions may not align with your unique context, overlooking critical connections and dependencies—such as specific human interactions, information flows, and cultural nuances—necessary for your system’s adaptability. No framework can perfectly correspond to your organization’s distinct systemic reality and values.

• Unrealistic Knowledge Assumption. Implementing a pre-made framework implies a belief that you (or its creators) possess comprehensive knowledge of all possible human connections and information pathways beforehand. This assumption is unrealistic. Fostering adaptability is always an unpredictable journey of discovery for your people; it requires learning your way toward adaptability rather than attempting to purchase it outright.

• Ignoring Foundational Questions. Furthermore, treating adaptability as just a ‘solution’ to be acquired neglects the fundamental questions previously raised—questions that need to be collaboratively explored and answered to establish a coherent, trustworthy, and purpose-driven system: “Who are we, and why do we exist as an organization?”, “What is the logic behind our value creation?”, “What are the actual barriers obstructing our system's effectiveness?”, “Is our decision-making genuinely swift, fact-based, and conducive to continuous learning?”, and “Are we truly delivering impactful solutions for our customers, and how do we genuinely assess this?”

  
  

When your organization tries to force its way of working into the box of a ready-made framework, you’re often just shuffling the same old pieces into a different container, potentially creating new points of friction. Nothing truly changes, evolves, or develops at the systemic level this way.

I can’t highlight enough that ultimately, all elements, functions, characteristics, and values of the organization are shaped and enacted by the people within the System. All layers, functionalities, characteristics, and values are defined by humans within the System, making the System the ultimate outcome of human thinking. Therefore, any change in the System must be preceded by a change in thinking: the System cannot create or develop its own existence independently. So, if You have Legacy Systems, You have also Legacy Thinking.

The idea of selling prepackaged solutions, like AI platforms, frameworks like SAFe and Scrum, FinOps, Cloud Transformation, or applications, fails to address customer pain points effectively because it prioritizes the solution over the problem. This solution-driven approach leads to spot-optimization—fixing isolated parts of a System without addressing the root causes of inefficiencies. When an organization tries to conform its working methods to a ready-made framework and technologies, it just results in rearranging existing elements just into a different configuration, creating new friction points and new bottlenecks. This approach does not facilitate genuine change, (r)evolution, or development at the systemic level.

Technologies, methods, and tools could and should support future-driven, value-creation activities, but they won't dictate aims and promises to customers and to own employees. It’s about an organization’s unique context, unique nature, and unique networks. Only organizations itself with its people, can design this all. It cannot be outsourced or bought from a shop like a preplanned solutions. And why this tool-driven, ready-made-solution-driven thinking is flawed:

1. Assumes One-Size-Fits-All:

   Selling solutions implies that the problem is already understood and universal, which is rarely the case. Customers face unique challenges based on their context, goals, and capabilities. A rigid framework like SAFe or a generic AI tool may solve a surface-level issue but fail to address deeper organizational challenges. A company implementing AI for "efficiency" may overlook the real issue: poorly designed System or unclear understanding of customer demands.

   
   

2. Misses the Root Cause:

   A solution-first mindset focuses on implementing tools rather than analyzing the underlying problems customers are facing. This can lead to applying a fix to a symptom rather than addressing the systemic issue. For instance, a "cloud transformation" project might ignore cultural resistance or poorly defined operational processes, resulting in increased costs without significant improvement.

   
   

3. Spot-Optimization Creates Inertia:

   Spot-optimization focuses on improving isolated areas without considering the system as a whole. While the local area might improve temporarily, the overall system remains inefficient or becomes more fragmented. Introducing Scrum in development teams without addressing cross-departmental silos may improve team velocity but won't solve end-to-end delivery inefficiencies.

   
   

4.   Focuses on Internal Metrics, Not Customer Outcomes:

Businesses adopting solutions like FinOps or AI often measure success based on adoption metrics (e.g., "We have 80% of workloads in the cloud") rather than meaningful customer impact.

5. Increases Complexity and Reduces Adaptability:

Adopting prebuilt solutions often locks organizations into rigid processes or platforms, creating inertia. Over time, these solutions can become the new "legacy systems," making it harder to adapt when customer needs or market conditions change.

Adaptability and agility are about human behavior and context — about who we are, why we are herein this organization, and what we aim to accomplish together.

Humans make critical decisions about their purpose, and it is humans who understand the voice of the customer. And based on this, it is humans who make a decisions about technologies and ways of working. Adaptability, agility, and value creation are not just emerging through implementing new technology or just as sourcing decisions; no technology or certified framework can make an organization adaptable or agile simply by placing an order and then waiting for delivery. None.

So, if the capability for adaptability of thinking is low / reactive, there will be always Legacy Systems and technical debt, only with changing areas, but still: debt affecting negatively to Your CX/EX, profit, and value creation capabilities. This idea aligns with modern thinking about technical debt, legacy systems, and adaptability in the context of business and technology strategy:

1. Technical Debt = Strategic Debt

   Viewing technical debt as a form of strategic debt is important perspective. In many cases, technical debt isn't ’just bad’ — it can be a calculated trade-off where speed-to-market or short-term value takes precedence over long-term system sustainability. However, just like financial debt, if unmanaged, it accumulates in the form of increasing maintenance costs, reduced agility, and growing level of risks.

   
   

2. Legacy Systems = Adaptability Debt

   Legacy systems will cause the Organization’s inability to adapt quickly to changing market demands or technological advancements. These systems, while functional, may be rigid, expensive to update, or misaligned with current business needs. Labeling them as "adaptability debt" reflects their impact on the Organization's ability to sense and respond to changes in its environment as a System.

   
   

3. Organizational Debt = Reduced Capability to Sense and Adapt

   This is the crux of organizational adaptability. A low capability to sense (understand market changes, customer needs, or technological shifts) and adapt (respond effectively and timely) creates environments where both technical and adaptability debts thrive. These debts then manifest as bottlenecks that hinder customer experience (CX), employee experience (EX), profit margins, and overall value creation.

   
   

4. Debt as a Negative Feedback Loop

   The cyclical nature of unresolved debt is important. Poor sensing and adaptation capabilities perpetuate the use of suboptimal systems, which, in turn, further degrade these capabilities. Breaking this loop often requires a deliberate investment in reducing debt while simultaneously enhancing the Organization’s adaptability.

In summary, technical debt and legacy systems are symptoms of deeper organizational challenges related to shared thinking and capability needed for establishing Organizational adaptability as a whole System (and this challenge can truly be labeled as 'Thinking Debt.' and/or 'Legacy Thinking'). Addressing these organizational challenges requires a holistic approach that goes beyond technological fixes. It necessitates a cultural shift towards seeing the world and its needs, sensing, collaboration, shared values, and answering the ’WHY’, zero distance to customer, shared leadership, clear purpose, continuous learning, and proactive system evolution.

Organizations must recognize the strategic nature of technical debt and the adaptability implications of Legacy Systems. By doing so, organizations can make informed decisions that balance short-term gains with long-term sustainability, ultimately enhancing their ability to sense and adapt to an ever-changing business environment of desires, needs, adaptability and need for sustainable business models. By addressing these interconnected challenges, organizations can improve their CX, EX, profitability, and overall value creation capabilities.

Constant need for adaptability is about new business models, it is about shift in perspectives, it is about a shift in how we approach problems. Need for adaptability and understanding the dynamics of value creation and building products, solutions, services, experiences and consuming those. It is about seeing the whole System where we belong and where we use our time and where we consume shared resources of our Planet. Adaptability is about sensing the ways in which we understand our ways of living, it is about seeing the effect of human desires on the Planet itself, and it is about applying technologies into our lives and businesses.

Technologies can offer the potential for disruption by enabling new possibilities, but it is the Thinking that capitalizes these possibilities, leading to the creation of new and disruptive business models and the transformation of industries. The main question has been and always is: how will we enable our purpose and is our purpose sustainable and future-proof? 

Understanding this purpose- driven context will ensure that the correct technical, organizational, purposeful, and cultural decisions are made, guaranteeing that they are fit-for-purpose and have strong ethics as a backbone. Technologies, tools, and frameworks are not the Masters; we, as humans, are. So, technologies are not the disruptors, evolving thinking is.

Just think; therefore become a Disruptor.

---

The Big Picture and the Context of holistic Thinking: