![\"Digital](\"https:\/\/www.cigniti.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/Digital-Complexity-Paradigm-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
To start, let\u2019s take another look at the Digital Complexity Paradigm:<\/p>\n
Technical complexity (multiplied to the Nth degree) factored against the necessary speed to market (insert \u201cwe needed it yesterday!\u201d being shouted by the CEO). All of this is factored against the unquestioned quality that is necessary in any market channel.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em>And with that, you have the DCP. And there is not an organization in existence that is not working through this equation, to varying degrees of success. And the other thing about DCP is that it is an adaptive and dynamic formula that has living variables, so solutions are never permanent, and failures lurk around each corner. The question then becomes, do these same organizations have the proportional expertise to assure<\/u> the successful delivery and outcomes of their digital initiatives?<\/p>\n If we can all accept the validity of this concept (and the MIT-worthy mathematical expression that represents the concept), then we should all agree on the importance of Digital Assurance as part of the larger digital transformation paradigm.<\/p>\n Yet, even with a critical mass of agreement on the concept, we don\u2019t always have a critical mass of execution on the concept. In other words, nobody will argue with the complexity, speed, and quality elements; yet when it comes to putting in place the \u201cproper\u201d Digital Assurance program, many enterprises fall. This edition in the series is focusing on the technical complexity value of our digital complexity paradigm formula, so let me get back to the broom analogy I mentioned in the first blog. Upon first hearing, a broom as an analogy for digital transformation\u2019s technical complexity seems ridiculous. Right?<\/p>\n But when we stretch the analogy a bit \u2013 where “a bit” equals 225 years \u2013 and think of the purpose of the broom, they have been used for centuries to sweep up, in and around the home and workplace. Prior to the invention of electricity (1879) and the vacuum cleaner (and better put, the time when vacuums became affordable for the average household in the mid 1900\u2019s), brooms were the only game in town to clean dirt from floors.<\/p>\n It could be argued that there has not been any household item that has had a lower technical complexity score yet served a more critical function than the broom. It is essentially a stick with bristles attached. Yet, as society advanced, household incomes increased, new surfaces were introduced (goodbye stone floors and hello carpets), and the broom became less functional and less practical.<\/p>\n The broom, while still totally relevant and utilitarian, has given way to the vacuum in many societies. The vacuum evolved from large and unwieldy (the first household vacuums weighed more than 100 lbs.) to the lightweight and technologically advanced vacuum of today. And of course, the modern day vacuum has led to robot vacuums such as the Roomba or Roborock. Yes, it took more than 200 years, but the point is that it is quite the progression of a digital transformation.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s get back to that DCP formula. If we think of what it took to get the broom into the market vs. the vacuum vs. a robotic vacuum, that is where the technical complexity value of the equation starts to make more sense. How much testing was required for the broom? Let\u2019s list out the test scenarios…<\/p>\n Give or take one or two, there are essentially five main test scenarios for the broom. If you think of the progression of test scenarios for a vacuum (there are close to 50) and then for a robot vacuum (there are over 250), each evolution of technical and digital maturity leads to much more complicated testing, and hence the digital assurance model required is going to be more complicated. And that is the challenge facing nearly every company out there: technology continues to evolve, digital continues to evolve. It is not getting any easier. As a collective society, we continue to push the bounds of what is expected from technology, and there is a direct correlation between raised expectations and the speed and quality at which it is delivered.<\/p>\n The broom example is meant to demonstrate how technological complexity advances exponentially over the life of a product line or category, as well as how technological advancement horizons are shrinking. The lifecycle of technological advancement and innovation has gone from being measured by centuries, then decades, then years, to the current day, in which it is measured in months and sometimes weeks. And there is no end in sight \u2013 innovation leads to more innovation.<\/p>\n All of this, taken together, further adds to the challenge companies are facing in keeping up. Without a proper Digital Assurance strategy and without the capabilities to execute that strategy, the evolution of an organization’s digital initiatives will fail to meet the expectations of the market. We have seen it time and time again.<\/p>\n In the next blog in this series, we will break down the speed component. Do you remember those public service announcements pointed towards teen drivers saying, “speed kills”? Well, in digital, lack of speed kills, and we will address that, factored against technological complexity and the challenge of getting software out the door with the best quality.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n The shift to digital-first has resulted in enterprises reimagining their business models and customer strategies. A robust digital transformation strategy<\/a> requires a complete makeover of the traditional QA processes and infrastructure.<\/p>\n![\""a](\"https:\/\/www.cigniti.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/digital-transformation-1.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/p>\n\n