GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Digital Transformation In IndustryTop 10 Best Automation Consulting Services of 2026
Ranked picks of the top 10 automation consulting services for enterprise automation, comparing Capgemini, Deloitte, EY, and others by tradeoffs.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
If you’re an enterprise team trying to automate cross-system work with real governance and operational handoff, Capgemini is the strongest fit, whereas Deloitte tends to work better when you need a controlled rollout backed by documentation and legacy-system integration planning.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Capgemini
Automation delivery that couples orchestration design with API-led integration patterns for controlled exceptions and production handoff.
Built for fits when enterprise teams need orchestrated automation plus integration, governance, and operational handoff for cross-system workflows..
Deloitte
Editor pickDeloitte’s delivery governance ties automation design artifacts to release, audit trail expectations, and operational ownership plans.
Built for fits when enterprise automation needs controlled rollout, documentation, and integration across legacy systems..
EY
Editor pickEY’s controlled program execution couples process mapping artifacts to orchestration build and operational handoff for production readiness.
Built for fits when enterprises need governed automation delivery across multiple systems and process owners..
Comparison Table
Capgemini
enterprise_vendorIT services and consulting firm with intelligent automation and RPA consulting services.
Automation delivery that couples orchestration design with API-led integration patterns for controlled exceptions and production handoff.
Capgemini’s automation consulting is built around translating process mapping findings into implementable automation workflows and integration paths. Engagements commonly cover orchestration design, exception handling patterns, and operational handoff so automation continues to run after deployment.
A key tradeoff is that delivering enterprise-grade governance and integration depth often increases upfront planning effort compared with smaller automation specialists. Capgemini fits best when automation must cross multiple systems and require controlled rollout with audit evidence, not just isolated robot scripts.
- +Integration-heavy delivery across legacy and modern systems
- +Exception handling patterns built into orchestration design
- +Governance and operational handoff for long-running automations
- +API-led integration approach supports controlled, testable handoffs
- –Implementation timelines can lengthen due to enterprise governance alignment
- –Citizen development workflows depend on client operating model maturity
- –Automation scope expansion can require additional integration discovery cycles
- –Tooling choices may require client acceptance of enterprise delivery standards
IT operations leaders
Attended incident triage automation
Fewer manual handoffs
Supply chain operations
Exception-driven order processing
Higher order processing throughput
Show 2 more scenarios
Finance process owners
Document-driven AP processing
Lower cycle time variance
Designs document ingestion workflows that drive approvals and system updates with traceability.
Enterprise platform engineering
Workflow automation with API integration
More predictable production releases
Implements API-led integration for automation triggers, retries, and controlled deployment cutovers.
Best for: Fits when enterprise teams need orchestrated automation plus integration, governance, and operational handoff for cross-system workflows.
Deloitte
enterprise_vendorBig Four firm offering automation consulting across finance, operations, and IT.
Deloitte’s delivery governance ties automation design artifacts to release, audit trail expectations, and operational ownership plans.
Deloitte’s delivery model emphasizes structured discovery, BPM-informed process mapping, and implementation governance that aligns automation outcomes with control frameworks. Automation work typically includes identifying target processes, defining exception handling and human-in-the-loop paths, and specifying integration contracts between systems of record and automation components. For enterprises, Deloitte commonly pairs orchestration work with modernization tasks so the automation lifecycle, including release and operational handoff, is planned rather than improvised.
A tradeoff appears in speed to first working automation, since Deloitte engagements often start with governance and operating model design before deep implementation. Deloitte fits situations where cross-functional approvals, audit-ready documentation, and controlled rollout matter more than quick prototypes. A typical fit is replacing brittle manual workflows with orchestrated processes tied to enterprise identity, logging, and incident response expectations.
- +Enterprise-grade process mapping that drives executable automation requirements
- +Clear governance for automation delivery, documentation, and operational handoff
- +Integration planning that targets legacy constraints and system contracts
- +Risk-aware design for exceptions and human-in-loop workflows
- –Prototyping cycles can be slower due to governance-first delivery steps
- –Automation scope can expand into program-level transformation work
- –Implementation details often depend on client architecture and tooling readiness
- –Coordination overhead is higher for distributed stakeholder groups
CIO and enterprise architects
Legacy integration for automated workflows
Lower integration rework across releases
Operations and process owners
Process redesign into controlled automation
Fewer manual handoffs and delays
Show 2 more scenarios
Risk and compliance leaders
Audit-ready automation operating model
Stronger evidence for governance reviews
Builds documentation, control expectations, and human approval rules into the automation lifecycle.
Automation program leads
API-led orchestration at scale
More consistent execution across teams
Designs service interfaces and workflow orchestration patterns to coordinate multiple enterprise applications.
Best for: Fits when enterprise automation needs controlled rollout, documentation, and integration across legacy systems.
EY
enterprise_vendorBig Four firm offering process automation consulting and intelligent automation advisory.
EY’s controlled program execution couples process mapping artifacts to orchestration build and operational handoff for production readiness.
EY’s automation engagements commonly start with process discovery and business process mapping, then move to an automation architecture that connects systems through documented integration contracts. Delivery teams usually align automation scope to control requirements, define exception handling paths, and build runbooks for operational ownership. This depth helps when automations touch multiple departments and multiple apps with different data quality characteristics.
A key tradeoff is that EY’s style favors structured governance and phased implementation, which can slow iteration for teams that need short-cycle experimentation. EY fits situations where automation output must survive enterprise constraints like legacy system integration, strict approvals, and measurable operational handoff.
- +Enterprise delivery rigor with controlled rollout across interconnected workflows
- +Strong integration execution for ERP and CRM automation initiatives
- +Clear operational handoff artifacts for production ownership
- +Governance alignment that supports risk and audit requirements
- –Slower iteration cycles than teams running rapid internal pilots
- –Requires stakeholder availability to complete mapping and approval workflows
- –Custom integration effort can be significant for brittle legacy interfaces
- –Limited fit for automation scope that stays within a single app boundary
Finance transformation teams
Automate close and exception workflows
Fewer manual rework cycles
Customer operations leaders
Automate case routing and updates
Faster case turnaround
Show 2 more scenarios
Automation governance teams
Deploy controlled automation at scale
Higher compliance consistency
Set delivery controls and documentation expectations tied to process mapping and ownership.
IT architecture teams
Integrate legacy systems into automation
More stable production integrations
Design integration-heavy workflows that coordinate data and actions across brittle legacy endpoints.
Best for: Fits when enterprises need governed automation delivery across multiple systems and process owners.
Accenture
enterprise_vendorGlobal professional services firm with a dedicated intelligent automation consulting practice.
Automation operating model delivery that combines exception-handling runbooks with audit-ready traceability across bot and workflow executions.
Accenture delivers automation consulting through cross-industry delivery teams that map business processes to executable workflows and connect them to enterprise systems. Its core capability centers on intelligent automation programs that span workflow orchestration, RPA execution design, and systems integration through API-led approaches.
Engagements typically include automation operating models with governance artifacts, environment planning for development-to-production handoff, and measurement of throughput and exception rates. The delivery footprint focuses on large-scale change across legacy platforms, ERP suites, and customer touchpoints rather than isolated bot deployments.
- +Large-scale automation delivery that connects workflow orchestration to enterprise systems
- +API-led integration design for RPA, services, and legacy application touchpoints
- +Automation governance artifacts that support audit trails and operational handoff
- +Exception-handling workflows mapped to control objectives and operational procedures
- –Requires structured intake for process discovery outputs to be actionable
- –Unit testing and deployment pipelines can become heavy for smaller scope programs
Best for: Fits when enterprises need end-to-end automation design, integration, and governance across legacy and ERP environments.
PwC
enterprise_vendorBig Four firm delivering automation consulting and intelligent process automation advisory.
Automation governance documentation that connects control evidence and audit trails to real workflow exception handling steps.
PwC delivers automation consulting that combines process assessment with implementation delivery across enterprise operations and technology estates. Core work centers on business process mapping and automation opportunity assessment, then translating findings into build-and-run plans for workflow orchestration and operational handoff.
PwC also supports API-led integration patterns for connecting legacy systems, case systems, and enterprise SaaS workflows into end-to-end automation. Governance artifacts such as audit trails and control documentation are commonly included to support human-in-the-loop approvals and exception handling.
- +Structured automation assessments tied to implementation roadmaps and operating model
- +Strong integration work for legacy systems and enterprise apps through API-led patterns
- +Governance deliverables for audit trails and exception handling across automated flows
- +Delivery capability for orchestrating attended and unattended steps in enterprise workflows
- –Heavier delivery motion than vendor-led automation tools for rapid pilots
- –Requires disciplined requirements, data readiness, and governance participation from stakeholders
- –Automation scope can expand quickly when process mapping and target workflows are still fluid
- –Depends on client IT bandwidth for integration testing, cutover planning, and operational handoff
Best for: Fits when enterprises need end-to-end automation delivery with integration, governance, and implementation planning.
Cognizant
enterprise_vendorIT services provider specializing in intelligent automation and RPA consulting.
Automation program operating model design that ties orchestration choices to governance, audit trail expectations, and change management.
Cognizant fits enterprises that need automation consulting tied to large-scale IT delivery and governance. The company delivers automation programs across process discovery, workflow orchestration, and integration with enterprise systems.
Its consulting work typically includes API-led integration design, exception handling workflows, and operating model definition for automation teams. Cognizant tends to be strongest where automation must align with control requirements, auditability, and change management across multiple applications.
- +Strong enterprise delivery track record across automation and system integration
- +Service design emphasizes governance, audit trails, and operational handoff
- +Works through API-led integration patterns across legacy and modern systems
- +Provides end-to-end automation delivery support from assessment to rollout
- –Engagement-heavy delivery model can slow teams seeking self-serve automation
- –Customization depth can increase build cycles for complex orchestration needs
- –Requires active client participation to define control framework and handoffs
- –Less suited for small automation pilots that need minimal program management
Best for: Fits when enterprises need controlled automation delivery across multiple systems and business units.
Genpact
enterprise_vendorProfessional services firm focused on process automation and intelligent automation consulting.
Operational handoff with standardized governance across automation lifecycle, including monitoring and change control routines.
Genpact differentiates itself by pairing large-scale operations delivery with an automation consulting workflow that spans process assessment, build, and run. It leans on a documented automation stack that includes orchestration, robotic execution, and document intelligence for end-to-end process handling.
Its consulting engagements typically focus on integration-ready automation that connects enterprise systems through APIs and supports operational handoff to business stakeholders. This approach is most visible in managed implementations that standardize how automations are governed, monitored, and iterated.
- +End-to-end automation delivery with consistent build and operational handoff
- +Integration work commonly includes API-led connections to enterprise applications
- +Document automation delivery supports OCR and downstream case processing
- +Automation governance artifacts are typically built into program operating rhythm
- –Automation governance and change control add overhead for small programs
- –Complex workflow orchestration can take time when systems lack stable APIs
- –Process mining scope may require clear data access and instrumentation plans
- –Extensibility beyond delivered workflows can depend on partner or internal skills
Best for: Fits when enterprises need managed automation consulting that ties integration, documents, and operations into one delivery stream.
TCS
enterprise_vendorTata Consultancy Services offers automation consulting through its intelligent automation practice.
Operational handoff built into delivery, with audit trail and exception handling embedded in workflow execution design.
TCS provides automation consulting that translates workflow requirements into production-ready automation builds across integration and operations handoff.
Program delivery typically includes governance-ready controls, audit trail expectations, and exception handling design to keep automation dependable under real workload variance.
Integration work commonly uses API-led integration patterns to connect orchestrated automation steps with enterprise application boundaries.
- +Engineers automation that maps process steps to working system integrations
- +Supports API-led integration for connecting orchestration with enterprise applications
- +Designs exception handling flows instead of limiting work to standard paths
- +Includes operational handoff artifacts to reduce post-go-live friction
- –Longer engagement cycles are common for governance and integration-heavy programs
- –Requires client-side process documentation to avoid rework during automation build
Best for: Fits when large enterprises need engineered workflow orchestration tied to complex system integrations.
KPMG
enterprise_vendorBig Four consultancy providing automation strategy and RPA implementation services.
Automation governance built around RBAC and audit log expectations for production control environments.
KPMG delivers automation consulting through strategy, process redesign, and implementation governance across enterprise operations and finance. The firm couples automation opportunity assessment with control-focused delivery practices that support audit-ready handoff from pilots to production.
KPMG’s automation and API surface typically centers on integrating target systems, standardizing orchestration patterns, and defining operating models that include RBAC and audit trails. Delivery emphasis favors complex enterprise workflows over lightweight bot deployments.
- +Governed automation programs with clear ownership, approvals, and operational handoff
- +Integration planning aligned to enterprise system landscapes and change control
- +Documented approach to exception handling and operational support transitions
- +Strong capability for process mapping and automation opportunity assessment
- –Implementation timelines can be longer due to enterprise governance and risk controls
- –Hands-on build depth depends on tool selection and partner implementation models
Best for: Fits when enterprises need governed automation delivery, deep system integration planning, and audit trail alignment for production handoff.
Bain & Company
enterprise_vendorManagement consultancy offering automation strategy and results-driven transformation advisory.
Bain’s engagement model links process mapping outputs to an operating-model and governance plan for scaled automation delivery.
Bain & Company is an automation consulting service provider that differentiates through strategy-led transformation work that connects automation roadmaps to measurable business outcomes. Its core delivery model centers on process discovery and business process mapping, then converts those findings into automation opportunity assessments and implementation plans.
Bain typically engages across workflow orchestration and integration middleware patterns, aligning operating model, governance, and change management with delivery execution. The firm relies on partner ecosystems and client tech stacks for tool execution rather than shipping a universal automation platform.
- +Process mapping and automation opportunity assessment tied to executive decision-making
- +Governance and operating-model work supports automation center of excellence adoption
- +Cross-functional delivery reduces handoff friction between IT and business teams
- +Architecture guidance focuses on workflow orchestration and integration middleware patterns
- –Execution depends on clients and partner tooling instead of a consistent proprietary automation engine
- –Hands-on API-led integration support can lag behind firms that ship integration products
- –Test and deployment pipeline depth varies with the chosen delivery partner and engagement scope
- –Governance and audit trail rigor requires active client participation
Best for: Fits when enterprises need end-to-end automation programs with governance and integration planning, not a single automation product rollout.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 digital transformation in industry, Capgemini stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right automation consulting
Automation consulting is where enterprise teams turn process discovery and orchestration design into governed execution across multiple systems. This guide covers Capgemini, Deloitte, EY, Accenture, PwC, Cognizant, Genpact, TCS, KPMG, and Bain & Company. The providers below are compared through how they handle exception handling patterns, integration approach, and operational handoff requirements.
Capgemini pairs orchestration design with API-led integration patterns to manage controlled exceptions and production operational handoff. Deloitte and EY tie automation delivery artifacts to release and approval expectations so workflows move into ownership with documentation and traceability. Accenture, PwC, and Cognizant focus on governance, audit trail expectations, and integration execution for legacy system touchpoints and enterprise apps.
Automation consulting that moves orchestrated workflows into governed production with controlled integrations
Automation consulting connects process mapping outputs to build-ready automation requirements so orchestrated workflows can run across legacy systems, ERP, and CRM environments. Capgemini emphasizes orchestration design that incorporates exception handling patterns and API-led integration for cross-system workflows that require controlled operational handoff.
Deloitte and EY align delivery governance with documentation, release steps, audit trail expectations, and operational ownership plans for automation that spans multiple process owners. Accenture and PwC extend this governance focus into bot and workflow execution traceability, tying control evidence and audit trails to real exception handling steps. Genpact, TCS, and KPMG add additional weight on operational handoff routines, with KPMG explicitly anchoring production control through RBAC and audit log expectations.
Automation consulting capability signals that affect governed production execution
Automation consulting should produce orchestrations that can run in production with controlled exceptions, not just process maps that describe the work. Execution success depends on how the provider ties automation design to integration behavior and operational handoff across multiple systems.
Exception handling and operational handoff baked into orchestration
Capgemini builds orchestration patterns that incorporate controlled exceptions and production operational handoff for cross-system workflows. TCS embeds audit trail and exception handling into workflow execution design for governance-heavy orchestration builds.
API-led integration patterns for legacy and enterprise app touchpoints
Accenture couples workflow orchestration with API-led integration design for RPA, services, and legacy application touchpoints. PwC pairs API-led integration work with automation governance documentation that ties control evidence to real workflow exception handling steps.
Delivery governance that links artifacts to release, approvals, and ownership
Deloitte connects automation design artifacts to release expectations, audit trail expectations, and operational ownership plans. EY links process mapping artifacts to orchestration build and operational handoff for production readiness across interconnected workflows.
Automation governance controls for production access and traceability
KPMG anchors production control through RBAC and audit log expectations as part of governed automation delivery. Genpact standardizes governance across the automation lifecycle with monitoring and change control routines tied to operational handoff.
Operating model and governance plan for scaled automation programs
Bain & Company connects process mapping outputs to an operating model and governance plan to support automation center of excellence adoption. Cognizant ties orchestration choices to governance, audit trail expectations, and change management for controlled multi-business-unit delivery.
Choose by delivery philosophy, integration constraints, and governance maturity
The right automation consulting provider depends on whether the program needs rapid pilots or governed release cycles tied to documentation and approvals. The next checks separate teams that want orchestration plus integration patterns from teams that want deeper operating model design and governance alignment work.
Map the program to controlled rollout needs versus pilot iteration needs
Select Deloitte or EY when the automation needs governed release, approval workflows, and operational documentation that multiple process owners can sign off on. Select Capgemini or Accenture when the program prioritizes orchestration build coupled with API-led integration patterns that can handle controlled exceptions while moving into production handoff.
Check whether integrations must be API-led across legacy and ERP or can tolerate orchestration-only fit
Choose Accenture, PwC, or Genpact when the integration requirement includes legacy and enterprise apps where API-led connections are expected to reduce brittle workflow coupling. Choose TCS when the work centers on engineered workflow orchestration tied to complex system integrations and requires long engagement cycles for governance and integration-heavy programs.
Decide how governance will be implemented in the delivery artifacts
Choose PwC or KPMG when control evidence, audit trail expectations, and governance documentation must be explicitly tied to workflow exception handling steps and production control environments. Choose Cognizant when the program needs orchestration choices linked to audit trail expectations and change management across multiple business units.
Validate that operational handoff routines cover monitoring and change control, not only design-time governance
Choose Genpact or KPMG when monitoring and change control routines must be part of the standardized operational handoff across the automation lifecycle. Choose Capgemini or TCS when the operational handoff must be integrated into the orchestration design so exception handling and audit trail behavior are consistent at runtime.
Confirm whether the program requires operating model and automation center of excellence planning
Choose Bain & Company when process mapping outputs must translate into an operating model and governance plan for scaled automation delivery, including automation center of excellence adoption. Choose Cognizant or Deloitte when governance alignment must connect delivery documentation to operational ownership plans that extend beyond a single workflow scope.
Who benefits from the most governed automation consulting delivery shapes
Automation consulting buyers with multiple systems, shared ownership, and production audit requirements benefit most from providers that tie orchestration to governance and operational handoff. Teams also benefit when integration patterns and exception handling behaviors are designed for runtime control instead of added during build.
Enterprise automation programs with multiple process owners across ERP and CRM workflows
EY and Deloitte connect mapping artifacts to orchestration build and governed approval steps so workflows move into ownership with traceable expectations. This structure supports production readiness across interconnected workflows and stakeholders.
Organizations integrating automation into legacy landscapes and enterprise application touchpoints
Capgemini and Accenture emphasize API-led integration patterns that reduce friction between orchestration logic and legacy or ERP services. PwC adds governance documentation that connects control evidence to exception handling steps.
Teams that require production control through RBAC and audit log expectations
KPMG builds governance around RBAC and audit log expectations for production control environments and operational handoff. This fit helps when access controls and traceability are mandatory for runtime automation operations.
Large enterprises that need standardized operational handoff with monitoring and change control
Genpact provides standardized governance across the automation lifecycle including monitoring and change control routines tied to handoff. TCS and Capgemini also embed exception handling and audit trail behavior into workflow execution design.
Programs planning for scaled automation governance and automation center of excellence adoption
Bain & Company links process mapping outputs to an operating model and governance plan for scaled delivery. Cognizant and Deloitte also tie governance and documentation expectations to operational ownership plans for broader change management.
Common buyer pitfalls in automation consulting selection and scoping
Buyers often mistake process mapping deliverables for executable automation requirements. Another recurring issue is underestimating governance alignment work that changes delivery timelines and stakeholder participation requirements.
Assuming governance is optional after the orchestration is built
Deloitte and EY tie automation design artifacts to release and approval expectations so workflows can move into production ownership with documentation and traceability. Programs that skip those steps often delay prototypes and stretch timelines because governance-first delivery steps must still run.
Under-scoping integration detail so orchestration build stalls when systems lack stable APIs
Genpact and TCS note that complex workflow orchestration can take time when systems lack stable APIs. Buyers should require an integration plan with API-led connection assumptions before build starts.
Selecting a governance-heavy delivery partner without committing stakeholder time for mapping and approvals
EY requires stakeholder availability to complete mapping and approval workflows across multiple process owners. Accenture also requires structured intake for process discovery outputs to become actionable for build.
Treating operational handoff as an afterthought instead of part of orchestration execution behavior
Capgemini and TCS embed exception handling patterns and audit trail behavior into orchestration and workflow execution design. Genpact adds standardized monitoring and change control routines that buyers should demand early to avoid fragmented handoff.
Expecting a consistent proprietary automation engine when the engagement model depends on partner tooling
Bain & Company links process mapping to an operating model and governance plan, but execution depends on clients and partner tooling instead of a consistent proprietary automation engine. Buyers should confirm tool choices and integration support depth before committing to a scaled program roadmap.
How We Selected and Ranked These Providers
We evaluated Capgemini, Deloitte, EY, Accenture, PwC, Cognizant, Genpact, TCS, KPMG, and Bain & Company on features, ease, and value to reflect real automation consulting delivery tradeoffs. Features counted for 40% because governed exception handling, API-led integration patterns, and operational handoff routines determine whether orchestration reaches production.
Ease and value each counted for 30% because delivery governance affects iteration speed and because engagement heaviness changes total program friction. Capgemini ranked first by coupling orchestration design with API-led integration patterns built for controlled exceptions and production operational handoff across cross-system workflows.
Frequently Asked Questions About automation consulting
How do Capgemini and Accenture handle API-led integration when automations span legacy and modern systems?
What differentiates Deloitte and EY in delivery governance for audit trails and operational handoff?
Which provider is better when SSO, RBAC, and audit logging must be mapped into the automation control framework?
When does process mining or task mining input change the automation opportunity assessment output from PwC versus TCS?
How is data migration handled during automation rollout for event-driven workflows in Genpact and TCS engagements?
What breaks if governance artifacts are treated as documentation-only instead of wired into execution, according to Accenture and PwC delivery models?
How do exceptions and human-in-the-loop approvals get modeled differently across Capgemini and Genpact?
Where does extensibility matter most in these consulting engagements, and how do Capgemini and Bain & Company differ?
What onboarding steps help enterprises get from workflow mapping to production-ready orchestration with minimal operational disruption across EY and Deloitte?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
- Digital Transformation In IndustryTop 10 Best Automation Integration Services of 2026
- Business Process OutsourcingTop 10 Best Automated Consulting Services of 2026
- Digital Transformation In IndustryTop 10 Best AWS Cloud Consulting Services of 2026
- Digital Transformation In IndustryTop 10 Best Automation System Software of 2026
- Business Process OutsourcingTop 10 Best Consulting Services Software of 2026
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Digital Transformation In Industry alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of digital transformation in industry tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare digital transformation in industry tools→