Managing Change in the Digital Age: A Comparative Study of Change Management and Digital Transformation Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today’s business market demand firms to innovate to remain competitive, and the biggest challenge of innovation is managing the change process. This paper highlights the importance of digital transformation for organizations to remain competitive and generate a competitive advantage in the hyper-competitive business market. Adopting new technology is complex, requiring dealing with the technical and human side of change. Change management is critical to ensure successful transformations and tackle the resistance to change, which is one of the main challenges any change initiative faces. This paper compares six change management models against eight digital transformation models to identify similarities and differences, which can be seen as strengths and weaknesses. The analysis of the models enabled the identification of critical activities that organizations embarking on change initiatives must follow to ensure the success of the implementation and sustainability of the change. The activities were categorized into four main stages to facilitate the comparison of the digital transformation and change management frameworks. The paper concludes that there is a need for a more robust model for both change management and digital transformation, capable of reflecting the current situation that organizations face where the only constant is change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it