A nearly $1 billion digital overhaul at a large tourism company took three years, according to Jean-Loup Richet’s account. Its central lesson is that transformation is not a technology installation: it requires fixing basic processes, connecting teams and systems, and changing how people work together. The company is unnamed, and the results below are Richet’s reported account rather than an independently evaluated case.
Why the transformation became messy
Richet says a company executive acknowledged in 2015 that the business was years behind in technology. Modernization then extended across subsidiaries and a network of roughly 180 locations. Procurement and inventory relied on a patchwork that included homegrown tools, spreadsheets, separate departmental processes, and legacy systems that did not communicate.
The difficulty was not simply that old software needed replacement. Richet describes processes that had accumulated over time without a corresponding evolution in how the organization thought about them. A source-to-pay initiative affected six departments, so a change to one part of the process could affect decisions and work elsewhere. Treating each department as a separate project risked improving local operations while leaving end-to-end problems intact.
Richet’s article cites estimates that about 70% of digital transformation initiatives miss their objectives and that roughly three-quarters fail to deliver ROI. It also says 70% of failures are attributed to insufficient user adoption and behavioral change. The article does not identify the original studies or publishers for those figures, so they should be understood as claims reported by Richet, not independently verified statistics.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
Think in networks, not just supply chains
The team shifted from a linear supply-chain model to a supply-network view. Instead of examining procurement as a sequence of handoffs, it mapped how orders, data, decisions, internal teams, and external partners depended on one another. Richet says this helped the team look for “no blind spots” across a complex operating environment.
For leaders, the practical distinction is between optimizing one group’s task and improving the shared outcome. A department may meet its own targets while creating delays or information gaps for another. Mapping dependencies helps expose those trade-offs before a new system hardens them into the workflow.
Rank #2
What leaders can learn from the case
Repair foundations before adding technology
New software cannot by itself resolve unclear processes, fragmented data, or systems that cannot exchange information. Richet’s account emphasizes pausing to address failing infrastructure and repairing foundational work before layering on additional tools. The sequence matters: otherwise, an organization may digitize existing confusion and make it harder to change.
Give cross-functional governance authority
Richet describes an executive steering group that met bi-weekly to surface and resolve conflicts across functions. A governance forum is useful only when it can make decisions, clarify ownership, and settle competing priorities—not merely report status. Shared outcomes also help prevent one department’s local target from undermining the overall operating network.
Bring users into design and rollout
The team involved end users during design and implementation. People who perform the work can identify usability problems and mismatches between the designed process and daily operations before a broad rollout. Participation should continue through feedback and adjustment rather than ending when requirements are gathered.
Change roles and capabilities alongside systems
Richet recounts changes to roles and training, as well as coordination between hotel and park planning. These examples point to a wider principle: process and system changes need corresponding adjustments in skills, responsibilities, governance, incentives, and everyday behavior. If those elements remain fixed, employees may revert to familiar workarounds even when the new system is available.
Keep adapting after implementation
Transformation is not a one-time deployment with a clean finish. Technology changes how work is done, and the organization’s evolving needs in turn shape how technology and processes must adapt. That ongoing feedback loop is more realistic than treating go-live as proof that the transformation is complete.
What the account says changed
By the end of the three-year program, Richet reports that procurement and inventory had a unified core system, data visibility had improved, governance was clearer, and departments communicated more. The article does not provide a financial breakdown of the nearly $1 billion figure or independent measurements of those outcomes. They are the author’s account of what the program achieved, not a verified assessment of its return on investment.
How to apply the lessons before a major rollout
- Map the work as it happens. Document processes, systems, data, decisions, teams, and outside partners, including handoffs and dependencies.
- Find foundational weaknesses. Identify failing infrastructure, duplicate or manual work, unclear ownership, and process differences that a new system would otherwise carry forward.
- Set shared outcomes and decision rights. Agree on end-to-end measures, name who can resolve cross-functional conflicts, and establish a regular forum with authority to act.
- Test designs with the people doing the work. Involve users early, gather feedback during rollout, and make changes when the process or interface does not fit real tasks.
- Plan organizational changes with technical ones. Pair system and process updates with training, role clarity, governance, and the behaviors needed to sustain the new way of working.
- Review and adapt after launch. Continue checking whether the connected process works across teams and partners, then adjust where experience reveals gaps.
The central lesson
Richet’s account makes the case that a large transformation succeeds or fails through the interaction of technology, processes, governance, incentives, skills, and user behavior. The work is messy because those parts are interdependent. Fixing the underlying process and aligning the people who operate it is not a side task to the technology program; it is the transformation.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
