The hardest part of digital change isn’t technology - it’s alignment
- Irina Lindquist
- Oct 30
- 4 min read
Why alignment is the make-or-break factor in digital transformation
Across healthcare, infrastructure, utilities and other asset-intensive industries, the push for digital transformation is accelerating. Organisations are investing in connected systems, automation, data platforms, and smart assets to lift performance and resilience.
But after two decades leading digital and operational transformation programs, one pattern never changes: technology isn’t what derails projects - misalignment is.
#Alignment of objectives, expectations, and success measures.
#Alignment between strategy, delivery, and day-to-day operations.
#Alignment in how people interpret why the change is happening at all.
When alignment slips, it doesn’t matter how good the technology is. Performance stalls, frustration grows, and trust erodes.
When everyone’s right but pulling in different directions
In one major hospital development I supported, the technology, funding and governance were all in place. Yet halfway through delivery, the project started to drift.
The functional team focused on clinical usability.
ICT pushed integration and cybersecurity.
Operations prioritised process efficiency.
Executives, under time and cost pressure, focused on budget control.
Each was acting rationally. But together, those well-intentioned priorities nudged the program off course. The agreed scope no longer matched the functional reality of end-users.
This misalignment is familiar in asset-intensive sectors too: engineering teams optimise asset data standards, operations focus on uptime, and executives talk in ROI and risk, each speaking truth, none sharing language.
The breakthrough came when the project team called a #pause. We didn’t change the technology or strip functionality, we simply rebuilt a shared story: what is the actual problem we are trying to solve, what are we trying to achieve, and what does success look like for everyone involved?
Once purpose and outcomes were realigned, momentum returned. Same people. Same tools. Different #clarity.
Why alignment breaks and what the research shows
Misalignment grows quietly in complex environments. Teams evolve, vendors shift scope, new leaders join mid-project. Without active recalibration, assumptions diverge.
Independent research backs this up:
As digital strategy matures, misalignment between business goals and digital initiatives increases unless continuously managed¹.
In healthcare, organisational readiness and culture are repeatedly cited as bigger barriers to transformation than technology itself².
Public-sector studies show that strategic IT-business alignment is a prerequisite for extracting measurable value³.
Across manufacturing and utilities, transformation success correlates strongly with leadership alignment and digital governance maturity⁴.
In practice, alignment is not consensus, it’s shared understanding. People don’t have to agree on every detail, but they must agree on the purpose and direction.
The human side of alignment
Every transformation I’ve led - from hospitals to property portfolios - ultimately turns on human alignment, not system design.
People experience digital change differently:
Operators see new processes and KPIs.
Engineers see standards, data, and compliance.
Executives see risk, cost, and optics.
If no one translates between those worlds, you end up with perfectly engineered miscommunication.
Research into digital maturity repeatedly highlights the same factors: human-centred design, leadership commitment, and workforce capability are the biggest predictors of transformation success⁵.
Alignment isn’t a tagline, it’s a living conversation that connects the strategy room with the control room, the boardroom with the ward.
Alignment in asset-intensive industries: governance, culture, and rhythm
The challenges of alignment in asset-intensive industries mirror those in healthcare only the stakes differ. These environments share:
High regulatory and safety obligations - decisions carry operational risk.
Complex value chains - contractors, vendors, regulators, and internal teams must stay synchronised.
Long asset lifecycles - digital systems must bridge decades of design intent and evolving standards.
That’s why alignment must be structured, not accidental. Programs that succeed typically share three features:
Governance clarity - clear ownership of outcomes, not just systems.
Capability uplift - new roles such as digital asset owner, data steward, or change liaison embedded early.
Cultural belief - a shared understanding that the technology exists to improve safety, efficiency, or experience, not to replace people.
When these foundations are weak, technology implementations become short-term projects instead of long-term capability shifts.
How to keep alignment alive
Anchor purpose in plain language
Everyone involved should be able to describe why the change matters in two sentences. Test this regularly.
Build translation layers
Assign roles that connect disciplines - clinical + digital, engineering + finance, operations + IT. These people prevent “lost in translation” moments.
Run alignment reviews
Not project status updates - alignment check-ins. Ask: Are we still solving the same problem? Did the environment change?
Map ownership early
Who owns the benefits, the data, the change? Without this, accountability drifts and governance collapses.
Match pace to capacity
If the organisation is change-tired, adjust delivery rhythm. Over-driving creates compliance, not engagement.
Normalise pausing
Pausing to realign isn’t failure - it’s maintenance of structural integrity.
The alignment checklist for complex transformations
Focus Area | Alignment Questions to Ask |
|---|---|
Purpose | Do all stakeholders share the same “why”? |
People | Who’s impacted and how do they define success? |
Process & Tools | What changes, what stays, and what becomes possible? |
Governance | Who owns benefits, who decides trade-offs? |
Capability & Culture | Are skills, mindsets, and leadership ready? |
Rhythm | How often do we recalibrate alignment? |
Metrics | What measures show alignment in action not just delivery progress? |
Alignment: the invisible architecture of transformation
Technology will always evolve, systems become smarter, sensors smaller, data richer. What hasn’t changed is that people still make meaning differently.
Transformation succeeds when those meanings converge. That’s alignment: the invisible architecture holding everything together.
So yes, invest in the cloud, modernise the platform, strengthen cybersecurity. But start - and continue - with alignment. Because without it, even the best-engineered solution sits quietly in the background, waiting for people to believe in it.
References
Westerlund, J. (2023). Strategic Alignment in Digital Transformation. Chalmers University of Technology. https://odr.chalmers.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/502005ca-e95f-4307-8310-c4868e767795/content
Alotaibi, N., Brown Wilson, C. & Traynor, M. (2025). Enhancing digital readiness and capability in healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-025-12663-3
Kappelman, L.A. et al. (2021). IT–Business Strategic Alignment in Public Organisations. CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol 2991. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2991/paper14.pdf
Galazzi, A. et al. (2025). Recommendations to Promote the Digital Healthcare Transformation in Clinical Practice. BMC Health Services Research. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-025-13079-9
StrategyConsult (2024). Human-Centric Design in Digital Transformation: A Study-Based Reappraisal. https://www.strategyconsult.tech/post/human-centric-design-in-digital-transformation-a-study-based-reappraisal
Comments