Digital transformation in document management: Challenges, risks and solutions
Synertec is a Business Reporter client
'Digital transformation' is a phrase heard in nearly every boardroom today. Technology vendors celebrate it, while organisations declare themselves transformed. But in the world of document management and communications – where real business operations meet complex compliance needs – how much transformation has truly taken place?
Many organisations have taken meaningful steps forward. Systems have been upgraded, workflows partially digitised and paper use reduced. These are all valid achievements, and they should be acknowledged. But in many cases, the journey is incomplete. Behind the scenes, manual processes persist. Communications remain fragmented, and critical customer needs – such as accessibility, preferences or timeliness – are often underserved.
The reality is that digital transformation in document management is still evolving. It is not a one-time project or a tick-box exercise. It is a strategic shift that requires clarity of purpose, sustained effort and expert support.
The complexity behind the change
One of the biggest myths about digital transformation is that it can be solved with a single software implementation. In practice, transformation is highly contextual. Each market – be it financial services, local government or healthcare – has unique challenges that demand tailored approaches.
For example, the Consumer Duty framework is pushing financial services firms to rethink the clarity and fairness of their communications. In the public sector, regulations on accessible information mean documents must be provided in the right format for every citizen. Across all sectors, the shift towards individual communication preferences and faster payment cycles adds further pressure.
These aren't IT problems. They are strategic business issues that touch on customer experience, cost management and operational resilience. A clear objective, supported by the right solution and expertise, is critical.
The risk of minimal change
So, what happens when organisations adopt a minimalist approach – ticking boxes to satisfy internal KPIs but avoiding deeper change?
Put simply, they are taking a high-risk gamble. Failing to address inefficiencies in document processes can result in broken customer journeys, rising operational costs and poor decision-making due to inaccessible or inaccurate data. Over time, this creates a competitive disadvantage.
Each business will need a different route to transformation. But delaying action is rarely a sustainable choice. Expert advice is crucial to navigate the path.
Yet many leaders see digital transformation as too complex or fear the unknown. Previous investments may have failed to deliver. Others struggle with limited internal capability or systems that cannot flex to new demands. In some cases, software solutions have overpromised and underdelivered – failing to accommodate unique organisational needs.
This is precisely where tailored solutions become essential. Understanding the causes of slow progress allows us to design systems that work in the real world. At Synertec, we've built our approach around this idea.
A tailored, scalable solution
Synertec's approach to digital transformation in document management begins with listening. Before offering any recommendations, we work closely with our clients to understand their goals – both for the business and for the end users.
We interrogate those goals, challenge assumptions and co-develop a roadmap of short, medium and long-term objectives. This plan is then matched with a tailored configuration of our Prism platform – a flexible solution designed to meet complex communication needs with minimal disruption to your teams.
Our dedicated account managers ensure smooth implementation, while regular reviews keep your solution aligned to evolving business priorities. This isn't software you buy and forget – it's an ongoing partnership that evolves with your organisation.
Proven results, proven technology
Some may ask: can a single system really handle the breadth of document types, formats and legacy systems in use today?
We believe the answer is yes – because we've done it for more than 25 years. Prism is the result of our in-house R&D and has been shaped by real-world client needs. To date, we've not encountered a file format it couldn't process. When we've seen a gap, we've enhanced Prism to close it.
Take the NHS, for example. Every NHS Trust has its own mix of legacy systems, departments and communication priorities. Prism was built with this variability in mind – making it just as suitable for the commercial sector, where data diversity and compliance needs are just as complex.
Working together, step by step
If you're ready to re-evaluate your current approach, we're here to help. The process starts with a conversation: what are your current challenges? What are you trying to achieve?
From there, we offer dedicated account management to explore every operational area, working with you to design solutions that work in your unique environment. This isn't one-size-fits-all – it's transformation designed for you.
Synertec remains committed to evolving our platform in line with customer needs. One of our next priorities is expanding Prism's capabilities to allow end users to select their communication preferences more intuitively. As preferences shift and regulation tightens, this flexibility will be essential.
Digital transformation is not about ticking a box. It's about building a foundation for long-term success. And with the right partner, it's more achievable than you think.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians can look forward to a bigger nest egg as super guarantee rises to 12%
Australian workers can look forward to a bigger nest egg, with an increase to the superannuation guarantee to add tens of thousands of dollars to the average super account. From 1 July, employers' minimum required contribution to employees' superannuation accounts will rise from 11.5% to 12%. It is the latest and last in a series of incremental increases from 9% over more than a decade since they were legislated by the Rudd-Gillard Labor government in 2012. With the latest bump, a 30-year-old earning $60,000 would have an extra $20,000 in super by retirement, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. It will add about $300 each year to the superannuation of a worker on a $60,000 salary, or $500 for someone on a $100,000 salary. 'The system foundations are cemented for young, working people to have a comfortable retirement,' the ASFA chief executive, Mary Delahunty, said. 'It's a moment all Australians should be proud of.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email The association said the cost of a comfortable retirement had increased 1.6% in the past year, while the cost of a modest retirement rose 1.7%. A 'comfortable' retirement includes top-level health insurance, a reasonable car and leisure activities. The cost of either outcome was increasing slower than Australia's current 2.4% headline inflation but retiree budgets remained under pressure from rising food, energy and health costs. Couples on average need $73,900 annually for a comfortable retirement, while most singles require $52,300 a year, ASFA says. For a modest retirement covering the basics, couples needed $48,200 each year, singles $33,400, or for renting couples, $64,250, and $46,660 each year for singles who rent. The figures underlined the importance of increasing Australia's housing stock, Delahunty said. 'They also illustrate how super can be the difference between hardship and stability later in life, especially for renters.' For some workers, the extra contribution would come from their existing pay package, according to CPA Australia's superannuation lead, Richard Webb. 'It's a good idea to check with your employer to see how they view the changes and what it means for you,' he said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Workers on contracts with a total remuneration package could see a slight drop in their take-home pay, while those on award or enterprise agreements would likely receive the contribution on top of their current pay. When compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992 – in part to reduce government spending on the age pension – only one in 10 Australian retirees listed super as a source of income. Nine in 10 people between 30 and 50 now have super. Government spending on the age pension was projected to fall from 2.3% of gross domestic product in 2020 to 2.0% by 2062-63, despite a doubling of the over-65 population and a trebling of over-85s over the same period. However, the super guarantee increase would not help those who missed out on paid work for extended periods, the Super Consumers Australia chief executive, Xavier O'Halloran, said. '(For) people who have caring responsibilities or who have been locked out of the unaffordable housing market … increasing SG further won't address those inequalities,' he said. O'Halloran said there was more that could be done to support people struggling in retirement, when a significant portion of their autumnal years' savings were made. 'Right now, there are no minimum standards for retirement products like there are for MySuper,' he said. 'There is also no performance testing of retirement products, so super funds can still sell poor products.'
The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
Why is Angela Rayner shifting the council tax burden from north to south?
When Angela Rayner took over her department, the first thing she did was to delete 'levelling up' from its name. But she insisted that she was committed to the idea behind the phrase, and now she is about to announce a change in local government funding to prove it. The new funding formula is expected to allocate money from central government according to local needs, including population, poverty and age, with extra weighting for rural and coastal areas with higher transport costs. The effect will be to force local councils in London and the home counties to put up council tax. Many of them are expected to increase tax by the maximum 5 per cent a year for several years, and more than before will ask Rayner for permission to hold a local referendum on an increase greater than 5 per cent. Councils in the north, the Midlands and east London, on the other hand, may be able to cut their council tax, or at least increase it by less. Is this fair? Labour argues that the Conservatives have fiddled the funding formula for 14 years, resulting in artificially low council taxes in places such as Westminster and Wandsworth – former Tory councils that attracted disproportionate media coverage in local elections. In the end, this attempt to cook the books could not hold back the electoral tide, and Labour won control of both councils in 2022. Clobbering those councils is going to make it harder for Labour to retain control, so it could be argued that Rayner is motivated purely by wanting to rebalance the national distribution of resources according to need. The new system will probably be fairer than the current one, if not perfectly fair, but any attempt to adjust local government funding throws up winners and losers – and the losers always make more noise than those who quietly pocket their gains. How quickly will the change happen? Even if the change were totally fair in principle, any sharp fall in central government funding and big increase in council tax is likely to cause hardship. That is why Rayner is expected to adjust her new formula by putting a limit on how much any council's income from central government can fall in a year. David Phillips, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says: 'It's been 20 years since we've had an effective system to allocate funding between councils so it is out of whack and the changes are going to be big.' That means any changes will probably be phased in over several years. What could possibly go wrong? If Rayner delivers a funding system for local government that is more closely aligned with local needs, she could deliver more radical policy substance than the Conservative slogan of 'levelling up' ever managed. But Phillips points out a philosophical problem. The more the government tries to redistribute resources from 'leafier places' to deprived areas, the more 'it is making a trade-off to prioritise need over incentives for councils to tackle need and grow their council tax base', he says. If councils receive more funding the higher their indicators of deprivation are, there is a danger of perverse incentives for them to keep those indicators high. Shouldn't council tax be revalued from scratch? Of course it should. It is based on notional property values in 1991 (in England; in Wales the reference date is 2003), so it is hopelessly out of date. But revaluation would produce even more dramatic individual winners and losers than changing funding for whole council areas. Rayner's redistribution is already what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'very brave, deputy prime minister'; a full revaluation would be several times braver – in other words, a guaranteed political disaster. The most that is likely to be politically feasible would be to revalue council tax for more expensive properties, such as the one in 20 UK homes currently on the market for more than £1m. A similar policy, called a mansion tax, was considered by the coalition government – George Osborne and the Liberal Democrats wanted it but David Cameron vetoed the idea, saying the Tory party's donors wouldn't wear it. Given that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is likely to be looking for new sources of revenue in the autumn Budget, this may be an option. She did rule out a mansion tax before the election, but I don't think it has been mentioned since. Look out for even greater 'fairness'.
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
Councils face millions in extra Send costs as overhaul delayed
Cash-strapped councils in England will be hit with hundreds of millions of pounds in extra costs after the government delayed tackling the £5bn deficits spent supporting children and young people with special needs and disabilities. Council leaders and experts said the two-year delay prolongs the financial struggles faced by local authorities as they await the government's overhaul of special educational needs and disabilities (Send) provision, and warned it could force more councils into sell-offs and insolvency. Local authorities have been allowed to keep high-needs deficits off their balance sheets, thanks to a special statutory override. This mechanism was due to end next April, creating a 'cliff-edge' that threatened to bankrupt scores of councils. The override will now run until April 2028, the government announced as part of its wider reforms to revitalise local government funding in England. Iain Murray, director of public financial management at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, said the changes have not fixed the fundamental pressures facing local governments. Murray said: 'Without urgent solutions to both existing and future Send deficits, those councils grappling with unsustainable high-needs costs and rapidly growing cumulative deficits may, at best, be forced to make further reductions in essential services, and at worst, risk declaring themselves effectively bankrupt.' The Local Government Association has said more than half of councils risked becoming insolvent if the override ended next April. A Guardian investigation revealed in March that their combined deficits would reach £5.2bn by the end of this year. The additional borrowing is likely to reach £200m a year in interest payments and associated costs, as well as lost income from investments and assets as councils use up their reserves to cover the deficits and loans. Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, said: 'Council leaders can breathe a sigh of relief knowing they no longer face a financial cliff edge in nine months' time. 'We now need to ensure that the government's commitment to support councils to manage their Send deficits rings true. 'Despite the extension of the statutory override, many councils still face a number of issues, including rising debt outstripping reserves, mounting interest payments and lost investment income. For some, this could mean reducing services elsewhere or running into extreme financial difficulty. 'Therefore, it is critical government sets out a comprehensive solution later this year. This should include writing off deficits and compensating councils … ensuring that the slate is wiped clean.' Helen Hayes, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons education committee, said the extension was a 'temporary fix', and warned: 'The government should not delay a permanent resolution to local authorities' long-term Send deficits beyond 2028 and it must work to devise a solution that helps councils to achieve long-term financial sustainability and does not damage their finances further.' Council high-needs budgets have been under pressure from the sharp rise in children with special needs, with the number requiring extra resources detailed in education, health and care plans (EHCPs) rocketing in recent years. Nearly one in five schoolchildren in England now have recognised special educational needs, according to Department for Education figures, including 482,600 children with EHCPs. The government said it will use the two-year delay to reform how the Send system works and is funded. In that time ministers say they intend to deal with the high-needs deficits, despite only raising central funding for local government 1.1% a year on average until 2028-29. A government spokesperson said: 'This government inherited a Send system left on its knees, which is why we are looking at changes through our plan for change to improve support for children and stop parents having to fight for help while bringing about financial sustainability for councils. 'We will set out our full plans for reform in the autumn, including our approach to supporting councils with their deficits, to deliver excellence everywhere for every child.' Other measures in the consultation will see government grants moved away from wealthier urban centres such as London towards to places with higher deprivation levels, as well as rural authorities and tourist hotspots where funding does not account for surges in visitors. Officials say the move will not lead to higher council taxes, in part because the government's financial forecasts assume councils putting council tax up by 4.99% – the maximum increase without holding a referendum. Jack Shaw of Manchester University, an expert in local government, said: 'The longstanding failure to reform council tax has had a more detrimental impact on councils outside London and the south-east, so it's right that funding is corrected to take that into account. Some authorities will lose out, but there are transitional arrangements to mitigate that. 'Council cuts under the Conservatives mean that it'll take some time to put them on a more sustainable footing. Funding reform will improve the fortunes of many councils, but they'll continue to face acute financial challenges.'
