The next stage of digital transformation: questioning what’s already in place
In the early stages of digital transformation, organisations made technology decisions based on the needs and options available at the time.
As those needs and options change, the decisions they shaped are worth revisiting. That willingness to reassess earlier choices is part of a more mature approach to digital transformation.
We can see this in how organisations approach digital trust. Bringing more processes online created a need for technology that could establish trust in digital interactions and transactions. As that technology evolves, so do the options available to organisations.
For important digital transactions, establishing trust means being able to demonstrate who is behind an action, what they agreed to, and what evidence is available if that action is questioned later. With more ways to provide that assurance, organisations can reconsider whether their existing approach still meets their needs.
From digital access to digital assurance
As digital processes have become established, organisations also need to consider whether the technology supporting them still provides the right level of assurance.
For eSignatures, that level of assurance depends on the transaction. Simple Electronic Signatures (SES) may be appropriate for one process, while another may require stronger identity checks and evidence linking the signer to the signature.
Qualified Electronic Signatures (QES) provide a higher level of assurance, with specific requirements for verifying a signer’s identity and the way the signature is created. This makes QES well-suited to transactions where that higher level of assurance is required.
What Scottish law firms can tell us
Scottish law firms provide a useful example of how access to QES can influence wider technology decisions, and how changes in the provider landscape can make those decisions worth revisiting.
The Law Society of Scotland has set out guidance on the use of QES, giving Scottish law firms a clearer framework for deciding when that level of assurance is appropriate.
Law firms in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland can also use QES, and some already do, but the regulatory and professional guidance available to them does not necessarily provide the same framework for its use.
For Scottish firms, then, the question isn’t only where QES is appropriate. It’s also how they access it. Does it require a separate process or supplier? How does it fit alongside their everyday eSignature requirements? And, as the provider landscape changes, does the approach they originally chose still make sense?
The QES provider landscape is changing
When many firms first selected their approach to QES, the provider landscape looked different. Access to the technology may have influenced which signing platform a firm selected, or resulted in QES being handled separately from other electronic signing requirements altogether.
As QES becomes available through a broader range of providers, some of the factors that shaped those original decisions may no longer apply.
What greater choice means for firms
When more providers can meet the required level of assurance, firms can look beyond QES alone and assess the wider fit of their signing provider. That includes how QES fits with their everyday signing requirements, whether the commercial model works for them, and how straightforward the process is for staff to manage.
More choice doesn’t mean organisations need to change an established approach. But where access to QES influenced an original technology decision, the options available today make that decision worth reviewing.
That’s part of a more mature approach to digital transformation. Technology decisions shouldn’t stand still when the needs and market conditions that shaped them have changed.
Sometimes, the simplest place to start is to ask: would we make the same decision today?
