A chair becomes a ladder.
A product becomes a platform.
A service becomes a subscription.
A company becomes something it wasn’t before.
Transformation is everywhere.
We talk about digital transformation.
Business transformation.
Product transformation.
Organisational transformation.
But there is something strange about the way we usually discuss transformation.
We tend to focus on the outcome.
The before.
The after.
State A.
State B.
Yet we rarely stop and ask a much simpler question:
How does something actually become something else?
Not how it is managed.
Not how it is funded.
Not how it is marketed.
Not how it is implemented.
But how transformation itself occurs.
Because when you look closely, transformation does not simply happen.
Something specific is occurring.
Something precise.
Something structured.
A product does not wake up one morning and become a platform.
A company does not accidentally become a different company.
A physical object does not transform without a mechanism that enables the transformation.
The movement between states has structure.
The question is whether we can see it.
Looking Beyond The Outcome
Years ago, while studying products that appeared capable of transforming from one state into another, I became interested in a simple observation.
Most people saw the outcome.
I became interested in the movement.
Everyone could see that a chair had become a ladder.
What interested me was:
What exactly happened in between?
What changed?
What remained?
What allowed the movement to occur?
What connected the two states together as one entity rather than two unrelated entities?
The more examples I studied, the more I noticed something.
Transformation did not seem random.
Different products appeared to transform through different mechanisms.
The transformation itself appeared to have structure.
Not All Transformation Appears To Occur In The Same Way
One of the observations that emerged from the research was that transformation appeared to occur through different approaches.
Some transformations occurred through rearrangement.
The entity remained fundamentally the same.
Its configuration changed.
Its orientation changed.
Its relationships changed.
But the underlying entity remained connected to itself.
Other transformations appeared to occur through becoming.
The entity altered into something different.
Its form changed.
Its function changed.
Yet some form of continuity remained between the states.
The transformation was more significant, but the connection still existed.
Others appeared to occur through addition.
Something new entered the system.
An additional capability.
An additional component.
An additional relationship.
The new state became possible because something had been integrated into what already existed.
These observations eventually became three transformation approaches explored within the research:
- Re-Orientation
- Re-Distribution
- Integration
Not as solutions.
Not as methodologies.
But as ways of observing how transformation appears to occur.
The Gap
We Rarely Look At
Most discussions about transformation focus on the states themselves.
Current state.
Future state.
Problem.
Solution.
What interested me was the space between them.
The gap.
Because transformation does not occur in the states.
Transformation occurs between them.
The greater the difference between the states, the greater the transformation required.
Yet many descriptions of transformation jump directly from one state to another as though the movement itself is self-explanatory.
I became interested in the possibility that the movement was the most important part.
Not the destination.
The bridge.
The Transformation Point
One idea that repeatedly appeared throughout the research was what I called a transformation point.
A transformation point is not the destination.
It is not the outcome.
It is the mechanism that enables movement between states.
The bridge.
The condition that allows one state to become another while maintaining continuity between them.
Without a transformation point, transformation remains an idea.
With it, transformation becomes possible.
Whether we are looking at products, systems, services, organisations, technologies or business models, the question remains remarkably similar:
What is enabling the movement?
Why This Question Still Interests Me
I do not believe this research explains all transformation.
Nor do I believe it provides a universal methodology for creating change.
The more I revisit the work, the less interested I become in making grand claims about it.
What continues to interest me is the question itself.
How does something become something else?
Because beneath every redesign, every evolution, every innovation, every adaptation and every reinvention sits the same mystery:
How does one thing move from one state into another while remaining connected enough to still be considered the same thing?
The research was my attempt to examine that question.
You may find the ideas useful.
You may disagree with them entirely.
But if you are interested in the mechanics of transformation itself, you may find something worth exploring.
A Personal Observation
Looking back, I don’t think I was only studying products.
At the time, I was fascinated by transformation itself.
How something could move from one state into another while remaining connected to what it had been before.
The research focused on products because they offered something useful:
Distance.
I could observe them without the emotion, assumptions and complexity that often accompany our attempts to understand ourselves.
A transforming product did not have opinions about its transformation.
It either transformed or it didn’t.
It either possessed a mechanism that enabled movement between states or it didn’t.
Looking back, I suspect part of what drew me to the question was the possibility that understanding transformation elsewhere might teach me something about transformation more generally.
Not because people are products.
And not because the thesis explains personal transformation.
But because the question itself seemed important:
How does something become something else?
That question still interests me today.
Looking back, I can see that it quietly became a thread running through much of my life’s work.
An ongoing curiosity about how change occurs, what enables it, and how something becomes something else.
Transformative Design (2008)
An honours research thesis exploring Re-Orientation, Re-Distribution, Integration, Gaps, Transformation Points and the mechanics of transformation.
发表回复