A Search for the Meaning of Education

In this blogpost, I have tried to develop an understanding of the meaning of education. In the process, I have tried to assess the education from points of view of some of the prominent philosophers. Having done so, I have tried to illustrate what is the meaning of education from my own perspective (this is in a way, a further illustration to my work. Which is already published in one of my previous blogs - An Attempt to Link Education, Learning and School).

1. Some Philosophers View on Education

In this section I have tried to understand education from the point of view of following philosophers: -

1. Socrates (470 BC – 399 BC)

2. Plato (427 BC – 348 BC)

3. Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

4. John Dewey (1859–1952)

5. Friedrich Froebel (1782 – 1852)

In the table below, I have tried to summarize the views of the above philosophers under following aspects of education: -

1. Meaning - Meaning of Education

2. Mode - Mode of Imparting Education

3. Control - Controller of Education

4. Philosophy - Approach towards Objective of Education in Society (Egalitarianism, Libertarianism, Utilitarianism)

No	Components of Education	Philosophers View on Education
		Socrates	Plato	Aristotle	Dewey	Froebel
1	Meaning	Explore the knowledge within individuals in search of truth	Inculcate self-control and the healthy balance of virtues	The perfect unity of physical, intellectual and moral education to become a good citizen	Education is a means to reform society to achieve fair distribution of common goods through democratic politics	Education is a growth from within of the native powers of the child to comprehend the world around
2	Mode	Informal Education based on consensus oriented Learning and Teaching through Open Discussions  across Groups, Communities and Societies. (शास्त्रार्थ)	Institutionalized formal education	Institutionalized formal education	Institutionalized formal education with customized pedagogy to specific needs, desires and interests of learners	Institutionalized formal education (kindergartens for kids) with multidisciplinary activities for all round development of learners
3	Control	Collective Consciousness of Society	State controlled public schools	State controlled public schools	State controlled public, private  homeschooling with greater autonomy on pedagogy	Community controlled kindergartens with greater flexibility and diversity to develop different facets of human excellence
4	Philosophy	Libertarian	Utilitarian	Utilitarian	Egalitarian	Egalitarian

Following are some illustrations on the views of the above philosophers from literature: -

1. Socrates – (Ref - Mares, Martin. "Classical Educational Concepts of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle." Retrieved May 3, no. 2019 (2018): 248-257.)

1. Socrates believed that our souls are immortal and same can be applied to our knowledge, but each time we are born again, we lost all the knowledge, and therefore we must educate ourselves to remind us of our lost knowledge (Plato, Meno 85b,c).

2. Socrates did not teach people in an institution, school or one particular place. Socrates roamed through streets, gardens, squares and agora in Athens with his followers and debated about things such as justice, politics, and beauty, a way of life, law and so forth (Plato, Apology, 22c,d,e).

2. Plato – (Ref - Mares, Martin. "Classical Educational Concepts of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle." Retrieved May 3, no. 2019 (2018): 248-257.)

1. Education helps people to maintain self-control and the healthy balance of virtues. This explanation can also be found in Plato’s Allegory of Cave which emphasises the need to liberate people from prison full of shadows and ignorance of the truth (Plato, Republic, Book VII. 516a–516b).

2. Wisdom for Plato is tied to contemplation and wisdom does not represent quantification or aggregation of knowledge.

3. Plato later shifts towards more utilitarian, institutionalised and state-controlled education as opposed to Socrates' liberal and all-encompassing search for the truth – Aletheia.

4. Justice is universal for all people, but other virtues are connected to particular class or group of individuals based on their profession and desired contribution to the society (Plato, Republic, book IV. 425b). Consequently, education should teach the specific group of people to maintain the balance associated with certain virtue such as a balance of temperance for artisans, prudence for political leaders or courage for soldiers (Plato, Republic, Book II. 377a,b}. Furthermore, the length of education is determined by a series of examinations each 10, respectively 15 years to decide which individual is capable of higher and higher studies up to an age of fifty. Those that failed to pass examinations were automatically sent to participate in activities and work associated with them, e.g. group of artisans (Plato, Republic,Book III. 409a,b). Those who pass all examinations and finished their education at the age of fifty were selected as ideal rules of the society (Plato, Republic, Book V. 473c).

3. Aristotle – (Ref - Mares, Martin. "Classical Educational Concepts of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle." Retrieved May 3, no. 2019 (2018): 248-257.)

1. Subsequently, the deeper sense of morality helps people to distinguish what is just correct and what is truly good, which results in better cooperation and well-organised society that can achieve goals for the common good (Aristotle, Book VII, 1323b.1).

2. Being good citizen means that one knows the difference between civic virtues and vices, although this does not automatically mean that one has to be the moral man at the same time (Aristotle, Book III, 1276b.34). In conclusion, Aristotelian education aims to make one a good citizen of the polis and therefore the education is tailored to make citizens good and happy because only good citizens can create a good society – the good city-state.

3. On the other hand, learners should not rely exclusively on education based on reason revealing causes of things, but students should also cultivate their learning through habits (Aristotle, Book I, 1094b.24).

4. Aristotle clearly emphasised that opportunity to study further as long as one is willing to study should be supported by polis and other citizens producing exceptional scholars is beneficial for the entire society, though such outstanding individuals must act in favour of the community and polis (Aristotle, Book II, 1273b.5).

5. Aristotle established his school Lyceum in Athens during the later years of his life, it is not clear if he we ever try to introduce such model of education to his students because unfortunately a large number of Aristotle's writings on education had been lost.

6. (Aristotle’s view as summarized by Curren - On Aristotle and Public Education - Gotz, Ignacio L. "On Aristotle and public education." Studies in Philosophy and Education 22 (2003): 69-82.) Children should be educated, and that this should take place through common instruction by state-appointed teachers in publicly provided places. ... In addition ... first, that this [education] may well in its content include an element of instruction in, and practice in conformity to, the laws of the state; second, that quite apart from this public schooling, Aristotle is arguing for a comprehensive code of juvenile law, aimed at the development of virtue; third, that a component of this juvenile law would specify what is and is not acceptable by way of cultural diversions and adult supervision; and fourth, that this juvenile law might possibly include a role for youths in the common meals in which their fathers participate. 

4. Dewey – (Ref - Sikandar, Aliya. "John Dewey and his philosophy of education." Journal of education and Educational Development 2, no. 2 (2015): 191.)

1. The role of education to transform the world into a more humane, just, and egalitarian society.

2. He saw education as a means of serving the democratic process through making corrections in the economic evils and by obtaining political ends that would lead to progression of a society.

3. Education for Dewey is the culmination of his political ideas. The shaping of a society in which the common goods, among which are the knowledge and social intelligence, are distributed fairly among all who participate in that society (Berding, 1997).

4. In Democracy and Education (1916), Dewey clearly states that the methodology of teaching leads to the purpose of teaching. As teaching and learning is pedagogical; therefore, the subject matter should be planned in effective ways. He clearly states, “The subject matter of the learner is not … identical with the formulated, the crystallized, and systematized subject matter of the adult” (p. 190). The subject matter alone is not a guarantee of learning and development; rather, the teacher should plan and connect the subject matter to the students, keeping in consideration the needs, desires, interests, and cognitive development of the students.

5. (Klapisch, Jacques. "" Learning by Doing, by Wondering, by Figuring Things Out:" A New Look at Contemporary Homeschooling and Pedagogical Progressivism." (2021)) Pedagogical progressive education, as defined through the work of John Dewey, Helen Parkhurst, and Carleton Washburne was the precursor to the contemporary homeschooling movement in ideology, practice, and rhetoric as defined by the writing and pedagogy of John Holt.

5. Froebel – (Ref - Dar, Rayees Ahmad. "Educational thought of Friedrich August Froebel." International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Scientific Research (IJAMSR) 1, no. 9 (2018): 36-42.)

1. Education is a growth and a growth from within of the native powers of the child held a great influence on the later thought of teaching theory and practice. His doctrine that knowledge is not the end of education, but the means towards the end minimized the value of verbalism. His recognition of the educational value of play, self activity, creative work, social participation and learning by doing are psychologically, socially and practically sound. Froebel was a person who never ceased to systematize, symbolize, idealize, identities and analyzed among all facts and phenomena of the universe. He made life more simple, clear and more recognizable.

2. School is a place where children were „allowed to blossom‟. Froebel regarded this school as a garden and the teacher as a gardener who carefully tends the little human plants under his care and helps them grow in beauty and perfection. There is an atmosphere of self activity, play and joy in the school.

3. He believed that all social institutions like the home, the school, the church and the state, etc. are the agencies of development of the individual wherein he is to realize the unity in diversity.

4. Froebel aimed that education must enable every child to understand his environment. Education should lift him to knowledge of himself and of mankind, to knowledge of God and nature. To Froebel education is not a preparation for future life, but understanding the life around the individual. It will help the child to develop his individuality through social atmosphere.

2. My Take on Education 

I feel I am a freedom lover and probably, therefore I find Socrates most appealing amongst the philosophers discussed above.

In my opinion, feelings are the essence of life. All the conscious actions of living beings are driven by sense of feeling. One’s feeling can be generated either through one’s acknowledgment of interactions (or observations) in the real world (अनुभूति) or feeling can be generated by acknowledgement of self-created abstractions (imaginations or thoughts – एह्सास). How one makes sense of her/his feelings (in the realm of one’s own view of the world around) is dependent on ‘capacity to understand’. 

Expressions communicate one’s feelings. An ability to express one’s feelings with an intent to make others understand the intended meaning is dependent on ‘capability to express’.

Thus, in my opinion, Education (E) can be considered as a measure of following attributes: -

1. Capacity to Understand (CU) - sensibility to UNDERSTAND and ACKNOWLEGE one’s FEELINGS. 

2. Capability to Express (CE) - ability to EXPRESS one’s FEELINGS.

However, Realm (R) could be understood as an environment in which the act of understanding and/or act of expression takes place. R sets the context for meaningful exchange of feelings. R can be considered to be analogous to a “Body of Knowledge (BoK)”. Any BoK usually looks at the world with adherence to a framework with an accepted set of beliefs, ethics, principles and values. 

Thus, E = f (CU, R) and E = f ’(CE, R’). Realms (R, R’) could be same or different (the case, when cross-realm expression and understanding takes place).

Individual knowledge can be considered as an integrated sense of accumulated feelings using which someone makes sense of feelings to develop an understanding. Morals is sub-set of this individual knowledge.

In brief, the measure of education could be considered as the capacity to understand and capability to express at any given instance under a given realm. 

With the limited understanding I have today, I believe that we should limit the definition of education at this point. Taking it further in any of the following ways will dilute the position of education as a natural privilege awarded by mother-nature to an individual: -

1. Attaching morality to education will make it directional with a desired outcome.

2. Attaching authorization to education will subjugate it an authorizer.

3. Restricting education within boundaries of a realm (say – realm of scientifically accepted world view) will not only exclude other realms (say – a theological worldview) but also resist individual attempts to create an altogether a new realm.

Education should strictly be driven by the will of an individual in all respects. However, stretching education to include any (or all) of the above-mentioned three possibilities will need the introduction of an external agency to supervise the act of educating oneself by any individual. In today’s world order it is reasonable to expect such an agency to be a bureaucratically run institutionalized body operating through top-down mechanism. And to me, this arrangement sounds like an attempt to govern (what should be) the supreme power in any society. For me, directed education is no education.

It is not sustainable for longer period of time to have an agency operating for long time without (having) a vested interest. It is nearly impossible to think that the agency in the agency-lead education will allow perfect autonomy to education of individuals and this will also hold for collective education of the society. Thus, the autonomy of education gets eroded by allowing a dominant role to such an agency.

It is not possible to exercise complete freedom to express oneself by convincing people, groups and societies advocating for one’s ideas (ideology, narratives, feelings, problems) with a central authorizing agency in place to validate and to support one’s ideas. This reduced participation.

Thus, it may not be unfair to assume that agency-lead control to the education will severely restrict the spirit of education (for an individual). Collectively, the society-at-large will end-up with an education system having limited: -

1. Autonomy

2. Participation

The procedural understanding of this limiting-effect of agency-lead control on education is shown in the following figure: 

An individual understands from the nature and society (however, the society can also be considered to be sub-set of nature) and morals are part of understanding (through interactions and experiences). Similarly, an individual expresses herself/himself in society. In many cases an individual may express to get concurrence of understanding or in some cases an individual may introspect and improve understanding and express to make the world understand her/his value-addition to existing understanding.

With an agency acting as a gatekeeper to direct an individual to understand selectively, to authorize understanding of an individual through a standard yardstick and to validate expressions of an individual within a given realm, the likelihood of an individual taking pride in educating oneself is less. Moreover, this gatekeeping approach may exclude much of the understandings and expressions an individual may have otherwise explored, if given an opportunity of enjoying personal freedom in educating oneself.

Unfortunately, the formal education system in today’s world relies heavily on an agency to authorize education (State) with an objective to create desired outcome (Economic Development). The realm of established worldview has earned a social acceptability to the extent that it is considered as the absolute truth. Needless to mention that the scientific approach allows space for queries, arguments and is convinced about many contradictions and is also open to fundamental changes to establish and re-establish facts (through evidence-based enquiry). 

With the above arguments, I feel, the present education system could be considered as a social construction of economic significance, which is legitimized by the state. It may be noted that once an entity becomes a social construction, an investigation of this entity from the first principals is generally discouraged in the society. Once this begins to take place, the entity starts to deviate from delivering its intended objective towards becoming a tool to be exploited by those in possession of power in society.

Some of the recent thinkers advocate for de-schooling of education and favor accepting communities as part of larger schooling system. This decentralization may increase the relevance of education for any society. John Holt calls for a reform not only of educational institutions, but also of the underlying presumptions of society about the purpose and value of education in general. He explores alternatives to formal schooling, examines the assumption on which our system of universal compulsory schooling is grounded, and offers a variety of educational experiments to remedy the faults he finds. He suggests that in order to give the student the widest and freest possible choice to learn whatever he or she wants to learn, not only open schools and free schools are necessary, but also community learning centers accessible to young and old, flexible school days and school years, and systems of "deschooled" learning networks like those suggested by Ivan Illich. (Holt, John. "Freedom and beyond." (1972).)

What factors affect Business Transformation?

 

Business transformations are often described as the orchestrated redesign of the genetic architecture of a corporation (Morgan and Page, 2008). Such a transformation usually involves radical change with a massive effort, is operated top-down, has clear objectives and has defined benefits to be achieved (Handbook, 2012). Therefore, Business Transformation Management is the holistic management of extensive, complex changes on which organization’s future success strongly depends (FHNW, 2012). And, this contrasts with continuous improvement, which takes place as a directed incremental change silently following the path of a long-term strategy of an organization.

Transformational initiatives are typically driven by value deficiencies experienced by an organization that cause them to reconsider and ultimately change the way they conduct their day-to-day operations in order to survive and grow organically (Rouse 2005). Factors such as changing environmental factors (Romanelli and Tushman 1994), changing market conditions, competitive threats, government regulations (Walker 2007), customer demand and satisfaction (Ashurst and Hodges 2010), political, regulatory, and technological advancements (Greenwood and Hinings 1996) – these are classified as variables external to the business which are beyond their control. On the other hand, there are also internal drivers that leads to a transformation, such as experiencing performance crisis, change in leadership (Romanelli and Tushman 1994), or the company seeking growth & expand its market share (Rouse 2005) - (Safrudin & Recker 2012)

Business leaders, consultants and managers conduct business transformation for firms. To them, understanding the mechanism of executing a successful transformation remains the most important consideration. A brief literature review suggests that following are three popular methods to view execution of business transformation: -

1. In the book ‘A Handbook of Business Transformation Methodology’ written and published with the support of SAP edited by Axel Uhl, Lars Alexander Gollenia, the big picture of Business Transformation Management has been defined as a Meta Management. Under meta management view, a firm can be viewed under following two broad components (with respective sub-components as mentioned): -

1. Direction

1. Strategy Management

2. Value Management

3. Risk Management 

2. Enablement 

1. Business Process Management

2. Transformational IT Management

3. Organizational Change Management

4. Competence and Training Management

5. Program and Project Management

2. In the paper titled ‘An Executive’s Guide to Business Transformation’, it is mentioned that any successful business transformation will have to address all eight components of the business transformation model. These are: value streams, strategy, organization, people, processes, systems and resources, leadership and performance measurement. For a transformation attempt to succeed, all eight components must be addressed. Most failed transformation attempts have failed to address one or more of these components. (Umit S. Bititci, 2007). The brief on                                                                                                       these components are as under: -

1. Value streams – Orchestration to deliver value to customers

2. Strategy - Utilization of resources for competitive positioning 

3. Organization - Organizational structure (hierarchical design)

4. People - Collective strength, passion and aspirations of workforce

5. Processes - Operational processes for delivery of products or services

6. Systems and resources – Ecosystem of operations, infrastructure and resources

7. Leadership - Approach of management in leading the organization

8. Performance measurement - Systematic approach to collecting, analyzing and evaluating products and services offered by an organization

3. The McKinsey 7S framework is a management model to assess and monitor changes in the internal situation of an organization. The framework consists of seven core elements of an organization structure, strategy, systems, skills, style, staff and shared values. An organization performs well under process of change, if these elements are aligned and mutually reinforced (Peters and Waterman, 1984). The core elements (components) are classified in the following way: -

1. The hard elements are:

1. Strategy – Utilization of resources for competitive positioning 

2. Structure – Organizational structure (hierarchical design)

3. System – Operational processes for delivery of products or services

2. The soft elements are:

1. Shared Values – Organizational culture (norms, standards, values)

2. Skills – Talents and capabilities within organizational staff

3. Style – Approach of management in leading the organization

4. Staff – Collective strength, passion and aspirations of workforce 

The above popular methods offer comprehensive guidance to organize, execute and monitor business transformation. In line with the mentioned methods the literature is rich in insisting on a variety of other similar methods on effective execution of business transformations (Examples in Reference). Much of the available literature addresses generic business transformations. However, some (of these literature) focus only on business model, some focus on a specific sector like (say) power sector or (say) telecom sector, some focus on technology like (say) digital transformation and, some are concerned with transformation to synchronize business with evolving norms of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance).

It is observed that existing literature is still inconclusive about the key factors contributing to successful business transformation for a firm. In this blogpost, I have attempted to explore this aspect of business transformation.

An organized effort, which is expected to have profound impact on business-prospects of a firm, usually has following two components: -

1. Planning

2. Execution

These two components are usually sequential (the planning precedes execution). In fact, these two components are so fundamental to any organized endeavor that they remain critical consideration for operational design of any firm. Drawing an analogy, it is reasonable to assume that any business transformation can have the following two fundamental components: - 

1. Strategy (Business Transformation Strategy) – The strategy is a plan to bring changes to the value proposition of a firm for intended competitive positioning in the market. This component is the planning part of business transformation.

2. Implementation (Business Transformation Implementation) – Streamlining the organizational structure and organizational resources to convert (strategy implementation) plan to execution (eventually) to yield intended result. This component is the execution part of business transformation.

Figure – 1: Components of Business Transformation

Let us further understand the Strategy and Implementation. According to Michael Porter (Porter, M.E. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press, 1980), a firm needs to formulate a business strategy that incorporates either cost leadership, differentiation or focus to achieve a competitive advantage. More recently, the meaning of business strategy has expanded, ranging from the document that contains the firm’s business plan to the strategy of the whole firm, to the strategy of departments and divisions inside the firm (Dagnino, 2018). The formulated strategy is implemented by firms through a systemic arrangement immaculate with the objective(s) of the chosen strategy.

Usually, strategy and implementation are consistently at work in a firm. Before the transformation comes into picture, a firm keeps on implementing a long-term strategic plan in an incremental and continuous way. Let us name this phase as Static Phase. Now, suppose to reposition the firm (for (say) to go for an ambitious expansion of business), its leadership formulates a transformative strategy. This transformative strategy is then implemented by the organization. Let us name this phase as a Dynamic Phase. In this blogpost, I will discuss the Dynamic Phase and therefore, strategy and implementation will relate to business transformation only in dynamic phase (unless stated otherwise).

Thus, initially, the (transformational) strategy precedes (transformational) implementation during dynamic phase. And then, transformational implementation closes-up to strategy to complete transformation. Once implementation of this strategy is successful, the Static Phase is (again) reached. And, during this static phase, once again a long-term strategic plan is implemented by the firm in incremental and continuous way. Of course, during this phase also, the strategy may precede implementation but the difference between lead and lag remains relatively less. Therefore, the risk associated for the firm during static phase is lesser in comparison to the dynamic phase.

With this background, let me get back to the (above mentioned) three methods used for Business Transformation Management. I will try to reduce the components used in the (above mentioned) three methods to the two fundamental components that is Strategy and Implementation. This exercise should establish that these two components (Strategy and Implementation) are essentially the fundamental components of business transformation, which are hidden within the mentioned methods. However, in these models, to assist strategy-practitioners, the fundamental components have been eventually broken into sub-components (for much granular representation). 

Figure – 2: Table reducing Popular Methods for Business Transformation Management to Fundamental Components of Business Transformation (Strategy and Implementation)

The above table shows that the Meta-Management components under BTM (Business Transformation Management) method has already classified all the components under two heads these are Direction (which can be understood to be referring to the Strategy) and Enablement (which can be understood to be referring to the Implementation). The components in Executive’s Guide and in McKinsey 7S Framework also can be reduced to be classified under the two fundamental components as shown in the table above.

Having established that the business transformation can be understood to have two fundamental components (Strategy and Implementation), let me prepare to have a closer look on these two components. 

The strategy is planning part of business transformation. The strategy is futuristic articulation of anticipated changes represented through logic of business analytics. Business Transformation Strategy is cautiously drafted as a collective effort by a team of experts and practitioners. Strategy has many interdependent moving parts to be controlled by a strategist. Therefore, numerous risk mitigated assumptions are made during the process of strategy formulation. 

Time and again it has been observed that no strategy is perfect in getting all the assumptions right. Therefore, strategy often fails to read the market with perfection and also sometimes fail to understand the ground realities of operational challenges in delivery of products and services within the firm. 

The above facts, eventually make the strategy to get out of sync with implementation. However, through monitoring, control and through corrective actions, the strategy is fine-tuned during the implementation phase. Since it may never be possible to have a perfect strategy, the ability of a firm to swiftly adjust the strategy with ever changing situation on ground keeping the essence of transformation in focus could turn out to be a key organizational characteristic for the success of a business transformation.  

With the above arguments, it can be inferred that a firm with relatively higher strategic agility may be more successful in executing business transformation strategy. Strategic agility is defined as “the ability to remain flexible in facing new developments, to continuously adjust the company's strategic direction, and to develop innovative ways to create value” (Weber and Tarba, 2014). It is a multidimensional concept, which includes both the ability to detect, anticipate, and sense market opportunities, evolving conditions, and other environmental changes and the ability to seize the opportunity with speed and implement new solutions (Gayathri Sampath and Bala, 2017). Particularly in a turbulent international scenario, where globalization affects consumer behavior and markets are impacted by continuous change, one of the most important success factors for international firms is strategic agility (Morton et al., 2018).

The business transformation implementation depends on a firm’s capability to transit from AS-IS scenario to the TO-BE scenario following the strategy and capability to sustain the operations post transformation. It is expected that during transformation the implementation should be able to flexibly follow changes to strategy introduced to accommodate unexpected circumstances. The implementation should also be able to give feedback on real situations (especially the adverse ones) as faced on ground back to the strategy to invite required adjustments to strategy to meet the intended objective of the transformation. The fundamental aspect of an organization to drive the above requirements of implementation could be the firm’s ability to assimilate external knowledge into operational processes swiftly with conscious efforts. This is also evident looking into the organizational operational capacity from Dynamic Capability Theory (DCT) view. Dynamic capabilities theory (DCT), which was developed by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) was defined as “the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments” (Arokodare, Asikhia; 2020). The dynamic capabilities of organizations stablish the connections to manage the absorption of knowledge (Vargas Hernández; 2017). 

The above discussions indicate that fundamental organizational characteristic to drive operations of a firm during transformational challenges is Absorption Capacity of the firm. A firm’s Absorptive Capacity (ACAP) is the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is critical to its innovative capabilities (Cohen, Wesley,Levinthal; 1990). In their seminal work, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) define ACAP as a firm’s ability to: (1) recognize the value of, (2) assimilate, and (3) apply new external information to commercial ends. Zahra and George (2002) modify and extend the ideas put forward by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) by specifying four distinct dimensions of ACAP: (1) “acquisition,” (2) “assimilation,” (3) “transformation,” and (4) “exploitation”. ACAP is essentially an organizational level construct (Addorisio, et.al. 2014). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that absorptive capacity is an ability firms should develop if they wish to adapt to changes in an increasingly competitive and changing environment and to achieve and sustain competitive advantage (Jiménez-Barrionuevo, 2011). Considering the above points on ACAP, it may be assumed that a firm with relatively higher absorptive capacity may be more successful in executing business transformation implementation. 

Summing up in brief, business transformation has two fundamental components strategy and implementation. Strategy depends on “Strategic Agility” of a firm. Implementation depends on “Absorptive Capacity” of a firm. Thus, the success of business transformation endeavor of firm depends on following two factors (as shown in the figure below): -

1. Strategic Agility of the firm

2. Absorption Capacity of the firm

Figure – 3: Factors for Successful Business Transformation of a Firm

Taking the discussions forward, it may be possible to do a Cartesian Analysis with “Strategic Agility” as X-axis and “Absorptive Capacity” as Y-axis. The firms may be plotted with standard quantified values of Strategic Agility on X-axis and to that of “Absorptive Capacity” on Y-axis. The XY quadrant may be divided into four areas. This is shown in the following figure.

Figure – 4: Classification of Firms based on Prospects of Business Transformation

Any firm may fall into any of the areas as shown in the figure. Every area is discussed with reference to prospects of success of business transformation in the following points: -

1. Lower Left – The Averse Firms – Firms falling under low Strategic Agility and low Absorptive Capacity area find Business Transformation most difficult with respect to the contemporary firms falling under other areas. Such firms remain averse to Business Transformation and may have temptation to resist transformation.

2. Top Left – The Cautious Firms – Firms falling under low Strategic Agility and high Absorptive Capacity area find readjusting strategy during the course of Business Transformation difficult. Such firms remain cautious to Business Transformation and have temptation to go slow with transformation.

3. Lower Right – The Ambitious Firms – Firms falling under high Strategic Agility and low Absorptive Capacity area find it difficult to carry on implementation in the same spirit with consistently readjusting strategy during the course of Business Transformation. Riding on high Strategic Agility, such firms remain ambitious to take on ambitious business transformation and have temptation go for an aggressive strategy without an adequate organizational support in implementing the strategy.

4. Top Right – The Agile Firms – Firms falling under high Strategic Agility and high Absorptive Capacity area find business transformation easiest with respect to the contemporary firms falling under other areas. Such firms remain agile to business transformation and may have temptation to swiftly transform with changing strategic requirements of the firm.

Keeping a firm at a high Strategic Agility score and at a high Absorptive Capacity score may surely come at the cost of increased operational cost for the firm. At times, it may be difficult to accommodate. More so, for firms having price sensitive products and/or services and operating under extremely competitive market. It is understandable that under such circumstances strategists face pressure to consistently optimize costs. Still, for the long-term prospects of capitalizing on next transformation to gain positional advantage in the post-transformation market landscape, (in my opinion) a strategist should always insist management to accommodate the increased operational cost.    

The four types of firms obtained on cartesian analysis (as above) with the factors of business transformation may have some characteristics preferences for conducting business. These are elaborated in the following tables and are solely based on my personal experiences acquired during last two and a half decades in various sectors.

 

Figure – 5: Strategic Preference of an agile firm

Figure – 6: Strategic Preference of a cautious firm

Figure – 7: Strategic Preference of an ambitious firm

Figure – 8: Strategic Preference of an averse firm

References:

1. Morgan and Page 2008 -- cited in “Identifying the Triggers for Management Services in Business Transformation Management” by (Safrudin & Recker, 2013)

2. FHNW, 2012 - cited in A Handbook of Business Transformation Methodology from SAP edited by Axel Uhl, Lars Alexander Gollenia, 2012

3. Handbook, 2012 - A Handbook of Business Transformation Methodology from SAP edited by Axel Uhl, Lars Alexander Gollenia, 2012

4. Safrudin & Recker 2012 - cited in “A typology for business transformations” by (Safrudin & Recker 2012)

5. Axel Uhl, Lars Alexander Gollenia -  A Handbook of Business Transformation Methodology from SAP edited by Axel Uhl, Lars Alexander Gollenia, 2012

6. Umit S. Bititci, 2007 - "An executive's guide to business transformation";ISSN: 1751-5637; Umit S. Bititci, 2007

7. Peters and Waterman, 1984 – “In Search of Excellence”  Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, 1984

8. Dagnino, 2018 – Dagnino, G.B. (2018). Business Strategy. In: Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

9. Examples – 

1. Governance Drivers and Barriers for Business Model Transformation in the Energy Sector

2. Internal Factors Supporting Business and Technological Transformation in the Context of Industry 4.0

3. Critical Success Factors for the Transformation Process in Enterprise System Implementation 

4. The Drivers of Success in Business Model Transformation

5. Radical Business Model Transformation: Gaining the Competitive Edge in a disruptive world (a book by - Carsten Linz, Günter Müller-Stewens, Alexander Zimmermann)

10. Weber and Tarba, 2014 -  as cited in Ivory and Brooks, 2018, p. 348 referred from “Strategic agility in international business: A conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals” Riad et al 2021

11. Gayathri Sampath and Bala, 2017 - Gayathri Sampath and Bala Krishnamoorthy “Is strategic agility the new Holy Grail? Exploring the strategic agility construct” ISSN: 1756-0047; eISSN: 1756-0055 (2017)

12. Morton et al., 2018 - Morton et al., 2018; Vaillant and Lafuente, 2019 as cited “Strategic agility in international business: A conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals” Riad et al 2021

13. Cohen, Wesley,Levinthal; 1990 - Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35, no. 1 (1990): 128–52.

14. Addorisio, et.al. 2014 - Addorisio, Michael, Gao, Shijia, Yeoh, William and Wong, Siew Fan 2014, Critical analysis of the use of absorptive capacity theory in IS research, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014), Association for Information Systems (AIS), Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 1-15. 

15. Jiménez-Barrionuevo - María Magdalena Jiménez-Barrionuevo, Víctor J. García-Morales, Luis Miguel Molina, Validation of an instrument to measure absorptive capacity, Technovation, Volume 31, Issues 5–6, 2011, Pages 190-202, ISSN 0166-4972, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.12.002.

16. Arokodare, Asikhia; 2020 – Cited in “Strategic Agility: Achieving Superior Organizational Performance through Strategic Foresight” by Arokodare, Asikhia; 2020

17. Vargas Hernández; 2017 -  Vargas Hernández, José Guadalupe  Muratalla Bautista, Gabriela; “Dynamic capabilities analysis in strategic management of learning and knowledge absorption”; 2017

18.  Blogpost Title Picture  - from freepic.com (https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/chessman-is-changed-shadow-crown_6172050.htm#query=transformation&position=0&from_view=search&track=sph&uuid=5fd7833a-8271-4a23-a0af-1d580e70db66)