Managing a project with digital tools is not the same as changing how an organization works through that project. The first is about how a project team operates. The second is about what changes after the project is delivered. When we treat both as the same goal, it becomes harder to assess the actual value of digitalization.
A 2026 conceptual paper by Eleni Papadonikolaki distinguishes between digitalisation of projects and digitalisation by projects. Its sociotechnical perspective looks beyond technology alone. To understand the impact of a system, we also need to consider people, workflows, and connected applications.
Consider an application process. Online forms, centralized documents, and easier tracking can bring clear benefits. But receiving applications digitally does not mean that every step, including evaluation, has become automated.
Digitalization may reduce existing work, or it may help an organization handle more demand. Those are different outcomes. As capacity increases at one stage, another stage may need additional capacity. We should therefore look beyond the number of digital transactions and consider the process from beginning to end.
This does not mean people should be removed from the process. It means understanding where technology and human responsibility meet. This is a general project management question, not a criticism of any particular institution.
One observation from my work with digital solutions is that the value of small applications is not always obvious when each is viewed separately. One tool makes information available. Another makes it easier to use. A third supports process tracking. On their own, these may look like minor improvements.
Their contribution, however, is not limited to their individual features. Connections, data flows, and shared processes also create value. End users usually see only the part they use, while project reviews may focus on a single application's scope. As a result, the value of the wider system can remain difficult to see.
Listing completed applications is not enough. We need to show what shared need they address, how they connect, and how they support organizational work. Process maps, system relationships, and shared benefit measures can help explain this bigger picture.
Delivering an application on time, making sure it works, and seeing people use it are all important. But these outcomes alone do not prove that an organization has transformed. There is a difference between delivering a product and realizing its benefits.
This distinction changes the questions project managers should ask. Which tools did the team use? When did the system go live? We should also ask which processes became clearer, which dependencies were reduced, what new needs emerged, and how different solutions create value together.
In my view, making that combined value visible is one of the more difficult parts of digital transformation. The contribution may be spread across several connected initiatives rather than captured in one project report. Evaluating it requires looking beyond technical delivery.
Digitalizing projects can change the tools and practices used to manage them. Digitalization by projects can change organizational processes, relationships, and services. These two directions can support each other, but they are not the same.
To understand the value of a digital solution, we need to ask not only what did we build? but also what did these solutions change together?
The practical reflections are professional observations, not claims about a specific institution or empirical findings attributed to the paper.
Cover photo by SumUp on Unsplash.