As performance specialists, it's not uncommon to hear people talk about their dismay at their organisation's latest 'transformation programme', only to be told it's the adoption (or now the removal) of Agile working, an IT upgrade, or a change in reporting lines for particular functions.

Regrettably, the term 'transformation' has been bastardised to a point where it seems every change a company ponders needs to be embellished to get people's attention, rather than preserving the word for more significant undertakings designed to transform an organisation's capability or its ability to serve a particular market.

Projects that help people improve their work, or alterations to reporting lines, shouldn't in and of themselves be positioned as a transformation programme unless they:

• Affect everyone, and
• Are of a magnitude that their stakeholders will see and feel its benefits.

How to know if a planned change programme is worthy of the word 'transformation'.

Trying to decipher what a successful business transformation looks like is easier than many believe.

In our opinion, it needs to:

• Include significant and material benefits to key stakeholders, i.e., staff, customers, and shareholders alike (or the governing body in the case of not-for-profits).
• Elevate the organisation's reputation and standing in the eyes of the market. This could or should include its market value, its desirability as a business, and/or the trust and confidence of the nation or communities it supports if it's a public service.

In practical terms, this should include demonstrable improvements in:

• Customer satisfaction, retention, and growth
• Sales, revenue, and/or profitability
• Staff productivity and engagement, although the make-up of staff at the end of it may be different.

Programmes that fall short of the above are best referred to as either 'change initiatives' or 'projects' rather than 'transformation programmes', although that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

The point is, transformation programmes are both comprehensive and strategic in nature. As a result, they encompass the entire business or division they're focused on and produce significant and material benefits that increase the relevance and/or competitiveness of the organisation.

To achieve this, all three elements need to be considered:

• People
• Processes
• Technology

Change programmes that focus on processes or technology in isolation are best described as either a 'process change' or 'technological upgrade'. Conversely, changes to staff numbers, configuration and/or reporting lines should be referred to as a 'restructure' – rather than a people, performance, or cultural transformation, unless the principal intent of the process is to transform people's capability and impact.