REALIZE Blog series Philosophy 

 Introduction

 This blog is part of a series of posting on our Realize approach to digital transformation. So far, I have discussed and attempted to define several key notions, including digital transformation, architecture, capability. It is important to note that we always make an architecture of some “thing” and therefore we have to think about the nature of that “thing.”  Only if we understand how we see reality can build a sound approach to digital transformation using architecture methods.  
 
Therefore, I will dive into philosophical foundations behind the Realize approach in this post. That is, I will briefly go into ontology (what do we think is real) and epistemology (how do we know it is real). I will also briefly touch upon methodology (how do we find out what’s real) as well. The post may seem what abstract/academic, and this is not for everyone. Therefore, I will only discuss some highlights that are sufficient for explaining design choices behind the Realize approach.  

Ontology, epistemology, methodology 

In research, a paradigm is defined as “the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed” (Kuhn & Hacking, 2012). We can simply translate this notion to the realm of digital transformation and assert that a paradigm is “the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between professionals (including architects) about how the transformation is to be understood and addressed.” If a group of professionals work with a different paradigm on the same transformation, then chances of success are slim at best. 
 
Essentially, a paradigm consists of three main parts:  

• ontology – What is reality? 
  
• epistemology – How do you know something about reality? 
  
• methodology – How do you go about finding it out?  
  

For the ontological stance, the question is: is there such a thing as a single, objective reality “out there” that we only have to study to understand. A physicist may say: yes, there are many natural phenomena out there (like gravity, magnetism, etc.). From an epistomological persecitve, this implies that we can study and learn more about in an objective manner.  This is the world of measurements and numbers that help to build a quantitative image of the world.  
 
A social scientist may disagree and claim that reality is what we  perceive it to be – for we all have different backgrounds and belief systems. With such a stance, it makes no sense to measure as it would mean different things to different people. From an epistemological perspective, understanding reality would entail understanding the different contexts and perspectives of people, which requires a more qualitative approach. 
  
There are many paradigms and choices to be made when setting up a research project. In an (older) blog post, I found an intersting overview that I have adapted somewhat to give an idea of the big picture. I have simplified it somewhat to fit the purposes of this blog.  

For a scholar/student setting up research, this overview is probably too limited. A more in-depth treatment to setup a research project would be needed (e.g. (Cambré et al., 2025)). For purposes of this blog, it gives just enough understanding to explain how we see reality and on what principles Realize is based.  

Realize 

Over the years, we have been involved in many different types of assignments in many different industries across the world. We have tackled these with the following principles in mind. 
 
There is nothing more practical than a good theory 
This famous statement by Kurt Lewin addresses the fact that in a lot of organizations, the word ‘theory’ has a negative connotation. We’ve heard more than once that “theory is for the university, here we have real problems to solve.” We think the opposite is true. Theories may help us understand situations better and come up with effective solutions faster. At the same time, they should not get in the way of achieving results in practice.  
 
Enterprise engineering 
Enterprise engineering is one of those terms that presently appears to have a bad reputation. Engineering is characterized by carefully trying to understand a situation and requirements for a solution, before attempting to make a design. In a world dominated by agile methodologies (where speed and jumping into action, often without thinking) appears to be the norm, a push for a more engineering mindset may help to strike a balance. As a colleague once said: vision without action is a daydream, but action without vision is often a waist of energy. Generally, we bring a mindset of “thoughtful, deliberate action” to the table.  
 
Every situation is different, and everyone has a unique perspective 
In many cases when we start an assignment, someone comments, “you’ve done this so often already, you probably know exactly what the outcome is going to be, don’t you?” And sometimes the undertone is: so we are over-paying you. We have learned (sometimes the hard way) that, even though challenges are similar, every organization/setting/team/problem is different. There may be similarities, but if you add everything up, then each time we have to start with fresh eyes. If anything, our experience (only) helps to see patterns faster and more deeply, which helps us to do our work better.  
 
Long term: big picture, short term: action 
One of the things we have learned is to work on two “tracks.” On the one hand, we want to get a sense of where the organization is going in the long run. With all the uncertainties and different perspectives on the future, we tend to do this in the form of a “big picture.” For the mathematically inclined readers: it is more a vector for setting direction than a point on the horizon. At the same time, we want to start the transformation sooner rather than later. By making changes, we achieve two things: 1) we can test whether our long-term plans make sense, and 2) we can on-board those people that tend to have an (overly strong) focus on the short term.  

Conclusion  

So, where does Realize stand? What kind of paradigm sits under it? Some elements in our approach (e.g. the engineering approach) might suggest that we lean towards positivism. Certainly we attempt to be as objective as we can, and try to create/use metrics that make sense whenever we can. However, this works with only a limited set of transformation work. Sometimes people can’t even agree on the meaning of the “simplest” of things! 
 
Other elements in our approach (every situation is different) might suggest subjectivism. By nature of their role and background—and let’s not forget about politics—people will have a different understanding of a) what the status quo is, b) what the direction of the organization should be, and c) how to get there. Getting a good understanding of the context and views of various stakeholders is the basis for constructive dialog and decision making.  
 
In practice, we feel that a pragmatist approach fits best. The context of the customer is always leading, and we adapt our approach for each individual assignment. Based on our experience and principles, we adjust that process, deliverables, rhythm of working etc. to maximize our chances of success. There is much more to be said about this. For example, the role of personal connections with key players hasn’t been discussed and neither has the role of politics and organizational dynamics. These are topics for future blog posts.  
 
The main/corresponding author for the Realize series is Bas van Gils. He can be reached at bas.vangils@strategy-alliance.com. If you have thoughts of questions, then feel free to reach out. 

References 

• Cambré, B., Elliott, K., & Fierens, J. (2025). How to design and develop a business research project: Demystifying academic research for business professionals (Paperback edition). Edward Elgar Publishing. 
  
• Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed). University of Chicago press.