Introduction
The popular definition of insanity, often attributed to Albert Einstein, is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” This definition has become more popular than the official clinical definition of insanity, the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
The exact phrase originated in the early 1980s within the context of 12-step recovery programs, where it served as a metaphorical tool for self-reflection on repetitive, unproductive behaviors related to addiction and family support. During the discussion of the program’s “Twelve Steps,” one participant remarked: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
While this isn’t a clinical or legal definition of mental illness or insanity, it is a widely used aphorism to describe futile repetition in behavior or decision-making. This colloquial phrase surely gives clues on how to determine when a person is suffering from insanity.
What to do, or how to help, when seeing an individual doing the same thing over and over, enthusiastically, and hoping to get different results? How do you react when this person starts doing the same thing, looks at you and says, “This time is going to be different, trust me.” Do you stop them? Do you run away? Or do you join them in their insanity?
Following the same trend of thought, I want to introduce you to a condition that not only affects people but also organizations of all sizes and types. It comes accompanied by a strong denial and the use of the phrase “This time is going to be different, trust me,” to sell hope and validate corporate loyalty. It is called Technological Insanity.
Technological Insanity
The definition for Technological Insanity is executing the same process over and over again using different technologies and expecting different results. Let’s use an example to understand this concept.
Imagine a company hiring a talented artist to design the new company mascot to be used in all promotional materials. The committees have determined that the old mascot, a cat, has to be replaced. There is paper and a pencil, and the artist starts his work diligently. After a while, he hands the image of a well-drawn, cute cat. The mascot committee loves the “new mascot”, a cat, even though it wanted a different animal. Finally, the cat gets selected for use. The marketing department is not pleased with this outcome, but time is short, so they have to use the “new mascot”.
After some time, a new promotional campaign begins, and it is agreed to pursue a new company mascot again. This time, high-quality color pencils are provided. The work starts, and the artist delivers a beautiful and colorful “cat” image. And again, everybody loves the “new mascot”, and it stays.
The exact process happens again and again, using crayons, markers, oil paint, and even spray paint. Regardless of what drawing technology is provided, a “new” cat is the final product. And again and again it is loved and re-adopted.
The mascot committee meets again and agrees that all the studies point to the need for a new mascot, not a cat, for the coming promotional campaign. The artist tells the committee, “You know, this time we could use this new technology called iPad. It comes with the Apple Pencil, which does wonders. Let’s try, this time is going to be different, trust me.”
The case above is an example of Technological Insanity, changing the technology, hoping to get a different result.
From our example above, who is enabling the technological insanity? Is it the artist who only knows how to draw cats? Is it the committee that gets enchanted by the new technological outcome and fails to recognize that it is the same cat, but looking different? Is it the marketing department that keeps playing along, even though they are aware of the need for change? It seems that everybody gets enchanted by the “This time is going to be different” promise.
There are many organizations trapped by this technological illness, spending a lot of money over the years, placing their hopes on various technologies, expecting different results. Because technological implementation takes time to show real fruits, the insanity cycle is slow enough to prevent people from realizing the real problem: Broken Processes.
Broken Process
A broken process in an organization refers to any workflow, procedure, or operational method that is inefficient, ineffective, outdated, or flawed, failing to achieve its intended objectives while consuming unnecessary resources or creating obstacles to productivity, quality, or growth. Organizations often develop broken processes due to a combination of structural, cultural, and managerial factors that emerge as organizations scale.
Organizations’ processes represent human activities, and humans are dynamic creatures. Naturally, with time, processes will become convoluted as a result of lagging in adapting to the organization’s growth. While humans organically evolved to the market’s needs, processes don’t change unless there is an intentional action to upgrade them to match human needs.
As time passes, human actions keep evolving, while processes are left behind far from the reality that created them. As a result, an “operational gap” appears between the humans’ expectations and the outdated organizational operations. And this is how broken processes are developed.
Operational Gap
As the operational gap grows, it is filled with “temporary” patch processes; some of these are manual operations, all of which are evolving into an incoherent but workable mix. Office software, like Excel or Word, is commonly used to create quick solutions to fill the operational gap.
This situation happens very slowly, to the point that whatever exists inside the operational gap is considered beneficial “because it works.” The issue is that while everybody feels that something is not going well and could be better, the mess and junk growing inside the operational gap are wholly ignored.
A broken process naturally becomes slow, and this is when people start to search for solutions. A committee will meet and conclude that it is time to upgrade to a new technology.
The existence of broken processes in an organization is a sure sign of Technological Insanity. Scott Norris explains this issue in his article “Why Technology Shouldn’t Fix a Broken Process.” He describes the pitfall of “Tech-First Thinking,” which has lasting consequences:
“Too many organizations fall into the trap of applying technology to a flawed process. This leads to several unintended consequences:
- Automated inefficiencies: Repeating the same non-value-adding tasks, just faster.
- User frustration: Employees forced to navigate systems that don’t align with how work actually happens.
- Wasted investment: Expensive tools that never reach their ROI potential.
Process excellence is a prerequisite—not an afterthought—for technology enablement.” (link)
The main problem with operational gaps is that people living with the broken process often struggle to recognize it. They can see the signs that something is not working efficiently and are seriously concerned about it. Every time the operational gap gets bigger, a meeting will be created to address the issue, which often results in additional software requirements.
More damage is created when organizations try to fix problems by building policies around the broken processes, attempting to resolve the latest operational gap issue.
Policy Hostage
When an organization’s policies are constructed around unrecognized broken processes, these flaws become deeply embedded into the operational framework, leading to a state of “policy hostage” where change is stifled and inefficiencies perpetuate. This scenario can have far-reaching negative impacts on the organization’s health, performance, and longevity. Some key consequences are:
- Perpetuated Inefficiencies and Resource Drain: Broken processes, once institutionalized, continue to consume excessive time, money, and effort without scrutiny. As policies reinforce these processes, the organization wastes resources on maintaining the status quo, reducing overall productivity, and increasing operational costs over time. (link)
- Resistance to Innovation and Adaptability: With broken processes hidden behind official policies, employees and leaders become conditioned to view them as “the way things are done,” fostering a culture of complacency. This makes it exceedingly difficult to introduce improvements or innovations to adapt to market changes. (link)
- Eroded Employee Morale and Retention Issues: Staff often bear the brunt of inefficient processes, leading to frustration, burnout, and disengagement. When policies institutionalize these issues, employees may feel trapped in a bureaucratic maze, with little avenue for feedback or change. (link)
- Heightened Risk of Errors, Compliance Failures, and Long-Term Decline: Institutionalized flaws amplify risks, such as errors in critical operations, potentially leading to legal issues, financial penalties, or reputational damage. Breaking free requires a painful overhaul, often only triggered by a crisis, which could have been avoided with earlier recognition.
Under the “Policy Hostage” circumstances, the awareness of Technological Insanity becomes more difficult. The barrier in this case is not just the policy as it is written, but the people within the organization who fully support and believe in its integrity to preserve the organization’s existence. When an opportunity for real change comes, it is thwarted by a big policy wall and its supporters. However, the “energy toward change”, which everybody seems to support, has to go somewhere, and it lands on getting a “new technology” to fill another operational gap in the broken process. A new cycle of Technological Insanity starts, but it is falsely labeled “innovation.”
Elusive Change
The first step toward change is to accept that something has to be changed, which could be necessary for positive or negative factors. Regardless, change is always a challenge. Naturally, people embrace the comfort of the known and reject pioneering toward the unknown. “According to a Prosci study, 76% of change initiatives encounter resistance at some level. Another important figure to consider is that more than 70% of organizational changes fail to achieve their objectives due to lack of attention to the human dimension of change.” (link)
Organizational acceptance of meaningful change becomes elusive due to the inherent rejection of change by the people in charge of a process, aided by the protection provided by policy hostage conditions. This situation creates the perfect conditions for Technological Insanity to develop.
Even though an organization will recognize that a process is not working well and change is necessary, the mentioned conditions will not allow it to focus on the real problem, but rather entertain the “desire for change” in searching for a new technology. In the end, implementing a new technology provides a temporary feeling of success while perpetuating the Technological Insanity.
The Expert
The complication toward change is that nobody wants to hear “you are doing that wrong,” even if that is what is happening. The first step toward improving a broken process is to accept that things need to change and allow for exploration of the problem. The rejection of being procedurally audited is one of the internal barriers that perpetuates Technological Insanity in an organization.
Technologists often encounter a typical attitude of resistance from organizational areas when attempting to fix processes. When conditions become complicated, it is common to find the attitude of: “I know how to do my work, I will tell you what I need, and your work is to find software to make it better.” And this is a barrier difficult to overcome, especially when the policies have been built to protect the process.
As a professional system analyst, I have encountered this attitude multiple times. Years ago, I was hired to build a custom accounting system for a corporation that contained four sub-corporations. The request was to make an accounting system that would allow the four sub-corporations to have independent accounting processes, but at the same time generate a consolidated accounting ledger to monitor operations from the parent corporation’s perspective.
As I progressed with the analysis, processes review, and redesign, the accountants invited me to a meeting in which I was told, “We are long-time accountants in this organization, and we know how complex this organization is and how it operates. You are the developer, and we tell you how we do things here and what we need; you are not an accountant.” At that time, I had already graduated with my second degree, “Accounting,” and I was on my way to finish my master’s in Accounting as well. So I replied to them: “I am an accountant too, and I can assure you that these operational changes I am proposing have been validated with the accounting practices we all know, and will work fine.” With the administration’s support, the necessary changes were made, and we successfully implemented the new accounting system.
Later on, in this process, I learned that I was part of the third attempt to implement a consolidated accounting system. The previous attempts had all failed because the accountants were unwilling to allow the engineers to redesign the processes; instead, they insisted on simply finding or building better software or technology.
This corporation had been suffering from Technological Insanity for years due to the accountant’s “expertise” used to protect a broken process. The truth is that many times the “experts” don’t allow for change, and these are the experts who had participated in the creation of policies keeping the organization hostage, unable to escape from Technological Insanity.
The key to solving organizational operational issues is to focus on improving and optimizing broken processes before searching for new technology. How can that be achieved when broken processes are invisible to the experts’ status quo and protected by strong policies?
Technology Dealership
One of the factors contributing to Technological Insanity is that, in many organizations, technology is viewed merely as a “service” area, limited to addressing hardware and software needs. While these responsibilities are essential, technology has dramatically evolved beyond its initial limitations to become a key element in shaping the organization’s strategy.
When technology is limited to hardware and software services, it begins to operate like a car dealership, or “Technology Dealership.” The place where vehicles (technology) are dropped off to be diagnosed, cleaned, and repaired, no questions asked. If the vehicle is giving too many problems, becomes irreparable, or there is a new fancy one, then the client will buy a new one. Still, no questions asked. If the owner wants to accessorize the vehicle, then it will be installed too, no questions asked, even if it is not necessary. Of course, any advice or feedback given to the client is always welcome.
However, in the moment the dealership (IT) starts asking operational questions about how the vehicle is being used, and may be saying “You shouldn’t be doing that to the car,” “I think this other vehicle fits your needs better,” “Don’t drive off-the-route, there is a highway near,” there is a chance of receiving the “I am the expert, I know what I am doing, just fix the car” lecture. This situation fosters a culture where technologists ignore broken processes because it is not their role to address them.
Under these circumstances, the IT areas embrace their Technology Dealership role and become experts in it. Their operations and policies are shaped to maintain their dealership status and define their operational boundaries. As a result, technologists are removed from initiating changes around broken processes. They will participate in filling the new operational gaps with new technology, in other words, actively participating in Technological Insanity.
Software Vendors
External companies offering new shiny software with enchanting descriptions make a living from the echo system created by Technological Insanity. They don’t talk to IT people; they sell their dream software to the final user, the one who is searching for a new technology to fill the operational gap in their broken process. These external companies will never ask or check for a broken process; on the contrary, they will push their software as the solution for any problem the client has, including curing cancer.
They will use clever marketable names like ERM or “Enterprise Resource Planning”, which are actually managerial concepts, but they package them as software units. They know how to manipulate the “industry standards” so everybody falls into “software peer pressure” and gets the product. An objective standard leads to operational protocols, not to software promotion. But the user does not know all that; they want their latest problem in their broken process to go away. And now they have found a “friend” who is telling them, “With my product, things are going to be different this time, trust me.”
Software vendors also help the Technology Dealership of the organization look good. Their role is to “fix the car,” and if there is a new accessory that will make the final user happy, then let’s get it and implement it.
I have never seen a vendor who will say, “Would it be possible to analyze your processes to check if our product fits into your operational reality?”, or “I think you should first focus on fixing your broken processes, and then you could contact us to evaluate if our solution fits your needs.” On the contrary, without even finalizing the salutations, they will say, “Our product is the door that will bring you to Narnia,” and the user will smile, even though a few years ago a similar company promised the same.
Software Vendors help to ease the existence of Technological Insanity. With their shiny solutions, they enchant the user into ignoring their broken process, initiating a new insanity cycle.
Strategic vs Strategy
As mentioned, nowadays, hardware and software are strategic elements in any organization. However, just because a process uses hardware and software, it does not mean that it has a technological strategy. Embracing something strategic is not related to having a strategy.
The distinction between “strategic” and “strategy” is significant. Let’s illustrate this with an example: A person needs to commute to work every day and arrive on time. Having options for transportation, such as walking, biking, taking the bus, or driving a car, is considered “strategic.” However, simply having a mode of transportation does not mean this person has a “strategy.” To ensure timely arrival, the worker must analyze the distance to work, the chosen method of transportation, and determine the appropriate time to leave home. It is at this point that a proper strategy is established.
In an organization, IT safeguards two essential “strategic” elements: Hardware and Software. However, under the “dealership” conditions, its influence on the organizational strategy is relatively minimal. It may have a strategy for its internal operations, but what it provides to the organization is “strategic” and not a “strategy”.
To have this concept clear:
- Hardware is strategic; hardware is not a strategy.
- Software is strategic; software is not a strategy.
- Distributing and training how to use hardware and software is strategic; it is not a strategy.
The optimization of broken processes to enable the efficient use of technology is a strategy. However, these strategies are often formulated by leaders who are removed from the technological view of processes and operations. Later, these decisions, which usually will create operational gaps, are delivered to the Technology Dealership for implementation, no questions asked.
Technologizing the Process
To break the Technological Insanity loop, organizations have to recognize that technology has evolved to the point of being critical in the architecturing of processes. Limiting technology to being just a service is detrimental to the organization’s processes. In this modern environment, processes must be architected considering technological advances, thereby enabling organizations to use technological resources more effectively.
This does not mean that hardware and software should be part of the conversation when architecting a process, which is a typical mistake. In the process of technologizing a process, hardware and software should be eliminated from the conversation. Talking about hardware and software puts the conversation back into searching for a better technology, which feeds the Technological Insanity loop. Experienced technologists will recognize this differentiation and focus on enhancing the process without starting a new insanity loop.
Organizations now view technologists as strategic partners who align technology with business goals, identify emerging opportunities, manage risks, and drive cultural change, rather than mere support functions. Instead of leaving the definition of processes to traditional non-technological experts, companies are realizing that more complex processes require the participation, guidance, or, possibly, ownership of experienced technological personnel.
This situation does not mean that the traditional non-technological experts are being replaced. On the contrary, they are being empowered to focus on their work: Defining the organization’s objectives, market strategies, and the metrics to measure success. The other important task is to team up with technologists to optimize or build a process that effectively utilizes technology.
Real-world examples of technologists changing and leading processes beyond just hardware and software are:
- LEGO: IT led the change of the process to support crowdsourced product design and media licensing, directly contributing to market adaptation and customer engagement strategies.
- DHL: Technology executives implemented AI-driven predictive analytics in logistics centers, optimizing real-time issue resolution and customer services like chatbots, which have become a core part of their global supply chain strategy.
- Disney: IT teams led the development of Disney+ and personalized tools like RFID-enabled wristbands that drive revenue through tailored content and services.
- Adobe: IT leadership pivoted the company to a subscription model with Adobe Creative Cloud, enabling seamless cross-device experiences and sustaining long-term financial growth through digital innovation.
- Regal Rexnord: CIO Tim Dickson spearheaded business transformation efforts, including AI applications for production scheduling and demand forecasting, emphasizing the need for CIOs to lead beyond traditional IT to deliver measurable business value.
- The Hartford: CIO Deepa Soni focused on developing new business models with generative AI and modernization, collaborating closely with business units to ensure technology drives competitive advantages and outcomes.
These cases highlight how IT’s strategic involvement not only optimizes operations but also fosters innovation and resilience in dynamic markets. In many successful companies, technology has moved beyond installing computers and software to leading the operation of processes, and in this way, breaking the organization’s Technological Insanity.
This situation could look threatening to the traditionally organized institutions for which technology is still a “service” and not a partner in the organization’s strategy.
Conclusions
Technological Insanity is an endemic reality for many organizations. The existence of broken processes is never addressed because these are not “seen” as broken. The operational gaps have created an entangled net of operational channels supported by layer upon layer of well-intended software.
Yes, it is possible to recover from Technological Insanity. However, this requires a strong commitment to genuine change by the organization’s leadership. The solution very rarely comes from within; it usually comes from outside, and when it appears, it is called a disruptor. The disruptor sees the broken system and creates a vision for what the organization could be. Because of the disruptors, technology has evolved in ways we did not imagine years ago. And they did it by avoiding being trapped by Technological Insanity.
The main advice for any organization that recognizes being trapped in Technological Instanity is to locate a disruptor and listen to what it has to say. And what it says will not include hardware or software, but a new vision for the existing broken processes.
Some other steps in the right direction to prevent Technological Insanity are:
- Accept that Technological Insanity is happening and be willing to support actions locating and eliminating it.
- Recognize that technology has evolved to become a key element in designing and managing internal processes. Processes have to be technologically designed and managed to become efficient in the use of technological resources.
- Be open to the need for change and remove policies protecting broken operations.
- Locate the technologists who put architecture above hardware and software. They are not trapped under the “Technology Dealership” paradigm. These are the ones needed to find and fix broken processes.
- Empower the technologist with the authority to boldly challenge and transform outdated processes and structures for a more effective and innovative future.
- Protect the discovery of broken processes from the “experts” who know how things should work.
- Recognize that hardware and software are not strategies, and should not be mentioned or considered when fixing processes. These are complementary after the process is optimally operated.
- Be cautious of software requests that do not arise from process analysis restructuring. These tend to originate from the same areas every 2 or 4 years, and no software makes them happy. These are clear signs of Technological Insanity on the move.
- Be open-minded to accepting what you may not initially understand. Validate a process based on its outcome and let the technologists do what they are good at.
Steve Jobs famously said, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” Steve did not say “to tell us how to lead”; no, he said “what to do” to provide better product and leadership.
Technological Insanity is a sad reality that lingers unnoticed for years. Always be alert when you hear: “This time is going to be different, trust me.”
Copyright Italo Osorio 2025
Photo by Tine Ivanič on Unsplash