The Use & Abuse of the Word Digital

From internal marketing teams to external consultants, from vendors to the government, the word ‘Digital’ (with a capital D!) is being jammed onto all manner of other words. We have Digital Marketing, Digital Channels, Digital Workspaces, Chief Digital Officers,  Digital Natives and, of course, the ubiquitous Digital Transformation.

But what do we actually mean when we prefix other words with Digital?  The short answer is: nothing and everything.  No. Really!

The long answer is that Digital is something that can be identified as a golgi-phrase.  

What's a golgi-phrase?  Glad you asked!  

During my doctoral research  - an examination of 35 years worth of IT policy and student device deployments - I identified the concept of the golgi-phrase.  A golgi-phrase is a phrase that presents an open space on which different groups can place their own meanings, constructed from their own worldviews. A golgi-phrase allows policy and ideas to be adopted more readily between different groups and obtain strong agreement, even when authentic understanding between the two groups is not present. When a golgi-phrase is invoked, it assumes a shared understanding (or more precisely a shared ontology). This gives the illusion that everyone understands what is meant. However, this assumption is quickly overridden by each group’s internal culture and pressures.  See Figure 1.

Source: LUHMANN-ANT: SHINING A LIGHT ON STUDENT DEVICE POLICY, Thesis, Joseph Sweeney, University of Newcastle, 2015.

The Benefits of Golgi-Phrases

So golgi-phrases are reinterpreted, but  why?  Is this simply a matter of 'Chinese Whispers.'  

No. Golgi-phrases have a very real purpose. The purpose may not be conscious, but it is intentional. These phrases allow different groups to re-configure external ideas to meet internal drivers without actually having to change.  Importantly, they allow groups to respond to others, using the golgi-phrase in such a way as to maintain agreement in the face of fundamental misunderstand. And that agreement is often related to some sort of tangible gain.

Golgi-phrases are also self-reinforcing over time.  When a golgi-phrase is repeated between different groups, it reinforces its importance (and thus value) between the groups.  The more the phrase is used between different groups, the more value it represents. Eventually, a golgi-phrase takes on a life of its own, attaining an almost unassailable position. This is why arguing against a golgi-phrase can be very dangerous. For example, during the DER, not a single politician (from any party), policy-maker or school network challenged the notion that the golgi-phrase "21 Century Education" or "digital" was a good thing. To do so would have been unthinkable, and probably career-limiting.

The meaning of the word Digital

Now, back to the word Digital.  I argue that Digital is a golgi-phrase. Perhaps it is the most widely adopted golgi-phrase in use today.  Like 21st Century, its origin lies in globalisation rhetoric.  The use of Digital appears to have migrated from Digital Economy, which in turn migrated from Knowledge Economy, harking all the way back the 70s.  In a broad sense, Digital implies widely accepted (and generally unconscious) truism that technology inherently delivers productivity gains and new opportunities to generate wealth.

Thus, placing Digital in front of a noun or verb imbues it with a technological sheen, making it more efficient, more product or more revenue generating than the noun alone. However, when this new term is passed from one group to another, each group will reconfigure the meaning to meet their own ends.

For example, recently we have seen Chief Information Officers replaced (or side-lined by) Chief Digital Officers.  Clearly the word Digital here is not highly differentiated from Information.  But the senior business executives (board members) are reinterpreting Digital with specific new properties that matter to them: notably assumptions of innovation, often with grand visions of step changes in revenue.

In this light, the appointment of a CDO is really a flag by business executives that they want something more or different from what they are currently getting from the CTO.  The word Digital carries inherent agreement that something new is needed, without needing to define what that something actually is.

Here’s the bad news: the IT groups and vendors re-configure the Digital part of this role to suit their internal worldview: commonly associating the role more with architecture and, perhaps, ICT strategy. These are roles already orchestrated by a Chief Technology Officer or Information Officer. The use of Digital may be universally agreed as a good thing, but it fails to create a significant change in action. Is it any wonder very little real change happens when a CDO is introduced?  (Sorry to all my friendly CDOs… it’s not you. It’s them.

Digital Transformation is another example of the power of the word Digital as a golgi-phrase.  For marketing people, Digital Transformation may be rooted in the notion the product and marketing are emerging around new consumer behaviors.  For a facilities manager or HR group, it may be more around the notion of changed workplaces, new employment and work patterns, new processes and even organisational structure.  While both groups assume that Digital means productivity improvements due to technology, neither group is actually talking about the same concept: not even close.

From the above, you can see that there is a real danger in using the golgi-phrase Digital. It hides important nuances in communication and understanding, or worse, allows resources to be allocated when no clear objective has been set.  The use of golgi-phrases is exactly why so many business technology initiatives end up being executed in ways that look exactly like the past.  

Does this mean Digital is not a useful term?

Not at all. As described above, a golgi-phrase is a useful tool for gaining agreement. Therefore, Digital can be used as prefix to flag that there is an expected positive change, due to changes in technology, but that the extent and nature of the change is not yet known.

For example, recently the IBRS team were struggling to find a descriptive term for the emerging end user computing ecosystem. We know that this environment will no longer be based on the desktop, or indeed any device form factor. We know it will be based on entirely new business and sociological assumptions stemming from changes in emerging technologies.   We know it will include some form of self-service capability. And finally, we know it will dissolve the artificial distinction between enterprise IT and so-called shadow IT and BYOD. But the speed at which new environment will emerge to become the new norm, and the impact it will have on how business is structured and how works get done, is still evolving.   So we know something is afoot, but we don’t yet really know for certain what that something will become.

After much debate, the term Digital Workspaces was selected. The golgi-phrase Digital allows us to signal that this both an important topic, based firmly in technological progress… but that all the answers, or indeed even the questions, are known. Even so, there is tacit agreement that this matters.

In summary, Digital is a powerful phrase. It’s ability to convey any meaning, yet nothing definite, allows it to rally agreement when none could otherwise exist.  

As with any powerful tool, it is both useful but runs the risk causing serious damage if not well understood.