What the data really says about technology, efficiency, and the gap between tools and culture
After publishing my last article, I grew curious about the phenomenon of inefficient innovation adoption and how this is one of the risks of investing in new tools without internal readiness.
But what do the numbers actually say about efficiency?
Not what consultants promise, not what vendors imply, not what internal presentations declare.
I wanted to understand what really happens when organizations introduce new technologies — whether they genuinely become more efficient, or whether something else gets in the way.
So I went searching for data.
And what emerged is both revealing and surprisingly consistent. Nothing actually mind-blowing but at least a confirmation with real data.
Most organizations adopt technology — very few digest it
One of the most recurring themes in the research is that buying or deploying technology is easy.
Integrating it into the way people work is not.
McKinsey’s landmark study on digital transformations shows that only 30% of transformations reach their objectives — and when the focus is specifically on digital initiatives, the success rate drops to around 16%.
Source: McKinsey — Unlocking success in digital transformations
Boston Consulting Group reaches a very similar conclusion: 70% of digital transformations fail to meet their intended goals.
Source (BCG): Flipping the Odds of Digital Transformation Success
When two of the most rigorous research houses in the world converge on the same number, the message is clear: technology alone does not drive change — and certainly not efficiency.
The adoption paradox: tools are purchased, but not really used
Perhaps the most striking data I encountered concerns software usage.
A large-scale survey by Flexera highlights that 92% of organizations admit having “shelfware” — licensed software paid for but never actually used.
Source: Flexera — State of IT Asset Management Report
https://resources.flexera.com/web/pdf/report-2020-state-of-itam.pdf
Zylo’s SaaS Management Benchmark Report reinforces the point: across enterprises, an average of 73% of Smartsheet licenses remain inactive. And according to the IDC / Snow Software ITAM Report, large organizations waste up to $18 million per year on unused or rarely used applications.
Source: Zylo — SaaS Management Benchmarks (From prnewswire).
When you read these numbers together, the pattern is unmistakable:
Adoption happens on paper. Absorption happens in real workflows — and much less often.
This gap between “technology acquired” and “technology actually used” is one of the most underestimated sources of inefficiency.
Technology helps when people understand it — and hurts when they don’t
One of the most interesting (and honest) findings comes from human-centred research.
A recent meta-analysis of 106 empirical studies shows that digital tools tend to have a “double-edged” impact:
- on one side, they boost performance, innovation, and confidence;
- on the other, they increase stress, anxiety, frustration, and burnout when not properly integrated.
Source: Wang & Yin (2025), Impact of new digital technologies on frontline employees, Systems (MDPI)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/13/1/8
Another study in the retail sector confirms that technology improves employee performance only when the workforce:
- understands why it’s being introduced,
- perceives it as useful and fair,
- and receives proper support.
In other words:
Technology doesn’t change culture. It exposes it.
It magnifies clarity, and it magnifies confusion.
It accelerates productive workflows — and accelerates dysfunctional ones.
The Italian reality: skills and culture matter more than tools
Looking at Italy brings another layer to the conversation.
A 2024 study on SME digitalization shows that the biggest obstacles are not the tools themselves, but:
- risk-averse culture,
- lack of digital skills,
- legacy processes,
- and limited capability to absorb new practices.
Source: Garzoni et al. (2024), Digitalization in SMEs: drivers, barriers and strategies, Review of Managerial Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00661-w
It’s telling that the Italian government itself — through the evolution of the Industria 4.0 program — explicitly introduced incentives for training (Formazione 4.0), acknowledging that buying technology without preparing people simply doesn’t work.
Source: OECD — Raising Skills and Fostering Technology Adoption in Italian Firms
Italy is not an exception — it’s an illustration.
Tools don’t create maturity.
People do.
AI shows the same pattern: nearly universal adoption, unclear impact
Even the most hyped technology of the moment follows the same logic.
A recent report on Global Capability Centres shows that:
- 92% of organizations are piloting or scaling AI
- but over 70% do not have a structured governance model to measure its ROI
Source: Zinnov & ProHance — AI in GCCs: Adoption & Impact Report 2024
This is perhaps the clearest indicator of all:
The problem isn’t enthusiasm or experimentation — it’s integration.
So what does all of this actually mean?
Organizations don’t become more efficient simply because they acquire technology.
They become more efficient when the introduction of technology is accompanied by:
- intentional leadership,
- cultural alignment,
- training and support,
- simplification of processes,
- and steady, iterative adjustment.
The maturity is not in the tool. It’s in the digestion.
Technology can accelerate what works — but it cannot fix what doesn’t and efficiency happens when habits change, not when platforms are installed.
Conclusion
Digital maturity is not adoption — it’s digestion.
It’s the point where tools stop being “new” and start being “normal”.
Where technology no longer interrupts work, but quietly enables it.
Efficient organizations don’t chase more tools.
They build the conditions that allow tools to matter.
