E006 Digital Transformation in the Enterprise carries banner number ITEC 2030 and is worth 2 competency units. It asks you to evaluate emerging technologies and decide how to integrate them so that business processes and organizational performance actually improve. E006 and ITEC 2030 name a single Degree Plan requirement. It is a small course with a demanding habit at its centre, which is refusing to recommend technology until you can name the process it changes.
Transformation is a process argument wearing technology clothes
The word transformation invites enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is exactly what this course is designed to discipline. Adopting a technology is not transformation. Transformation happens when a process changes shape: steps disappear, handoffs collapse, a decision that took three days now takes an hour, or information that was recreated in four places is entered once. If your analysis cannot describe the before and after of a process, you are describing a purchase.
That framing makes the evaluation work concrete. For any emerging technology, ask what it makes cheap that used to be expensive. Automation makes repetition cheap. Analytics makes pattern-finding cheap. Connected devices make measurement cheap. Then look at the organization and ask which of its processes is expensive for exactly that reason. The match between those two answers is your recommendation, and the absence of a match is a perfectly good finding to report.
The organizational half is scored as seriously as the technical half. A process change is a change to people's work, and technology adoption that ignores adoption behaviour tends to produce parallel systems where the old spreadsheet quietly survives. Naming who is affected, what they lose, and what would make the new way easier than the old way is not padding; it is usually a scored aspect.
Outcomes are logged as Competent or Not Competent, and neither letter grades nor an ordinary grade point average are recorded, and the 2 competency units measure course size within a six month term sold at one price. Two competency units make it one of the smaller courses in the plan, and inside a flat-priced six month term a small course is exactly the kind you want closed early, since it costs term time out of proportion to its weight if it drifts.
Turning a small rubric into a tight plan
If your version of E006 uses a performance assessment, the aspect count is often modest and the depth expectation per aspect is correspondingly higher. WGU requires a score of 2 in each aspect to pass a task, and each aspect is judged alone, so on a short rubric a single thin answer is a large proportion of your risk.
Work the arithmetic. Suppose there are four scored aspects and the deliverable targets around 1,200 words. Reserve 110 words to describe the organization and the process under examination, and 90 for a close, leaving 1,000 across four aspects, or 250 each. Weight by what each demands: an aspect asking you to evaluate technologies against business needs deserves 340, since it needs criteria plus at least two candidates; an aspect asking for an integration recommendation deserves 300; the two remaining descriptive aspects take 180 each. That totals 1,000.
On a short deliverable, structure carries more weight than usual, because there is no room to bury an aspect and hope. Give every aspect a heading even if the document is only three pages. A short document with four clear headings scores better than a longer one where the evaluator has to locate the answers.
One planning discipline specific to this course: write the before and after of the process before you write anything else. If you cannot describe the current process in five steps, you do not yet know enough about the scenario to evaluate anything against it.
Shape for a transformation evaluation
E006 deliverables typically evaluate one or more technologies for a described organization. These proportions fit a short document.
| Section | Content | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Organization and process | The business and the current process in numbered steps, with where time and effort go today. | 15 percent |
| Performance problem | What is wrong, expressed in a measure: elapsed time, rework rate, error frequency, cost per transaction. | 12 percent |
| Technology evaluation | Candidate technologies, what each makes cheap, and their maturity and risk. Criteria stated before candidates. | 26 percent |
| Integration approach | How the chosen technology enters the process, what it replaces, and what has to connect to what. | 20 percent |
| People and adoption | Who is affected, what changes in their day, and what would make the new path the easy one. | 15 percent |
| Expected effect | The same measure from the problem section, projected, with the assumption behind the projection stated. | 12 percent |
Sourcing claims about technology that is still moving
Emerging technology is the hardest subject in this degree to source well, because the loudest material is promotional and the field moves faster than the literature. Capability claims belong to vendor or project documentation, dated. Maturity and adoption claims belong to published industry research, dated, and treated as one view rather than as fact. Claims about effect on business performance belong to case studies or research, and should be reported with their context, since an outcome achieved by a large retailer may not transfer to a forty person firm.
Watch for the substitution trap. A vendor case study is a marketing artifact with a research shape, and citing one as evidence of general effectiveness is the most common credibility failure in transformation writing. Use it as an illustration, name it as one, and keep the weight of your argument on criteria applied to the scenario.
Your own arithmetic is often your best evidence. If the current process takes six steps and two of them are manual re-entry, you can estimate the time saved from the scenario's own numbers and show the calculation. An estimate with visible arithmetic and a stated assumption is more persuasive than a sourced claim about someone else's organization.
Use the citation style your task names and put the citation where the assertion actually appears. Where you cite anything about an emerging technology, give the date you consulted it, because in this subject a two year old source can be describing a product that no longer exists in that form.
Competent evaluation and returned work
Competent submissions name a process, measure it, evaluate technology against criteria drawn from that measurement, and project an effect with a stated assumption. They are willing to say that a fashionable technology does not fit, which is one of the strongest moves available in this course.
Returns follow four shapes. The document describes a technology at length and never names a process it changes. Benefits are asserted with no measure attached. Criteria appear after the recommendation, which makes the evaluation look retrofitted. Or the adoption section is missing entirely, leaving a plan that assumes people will simply use the new thing.
The strongest single addition to a transformation document is a sentence about what could go wrong. Every integration creates a new dependency, a new place data can be wrong, or a new skill the organization does not yet have. Naming one of those honestly, and saying how you would detect it early, converts an enthusiastic recommendation into a considered one and takes about twenty words.
Because the deliverable is short, one more failure is worth naming: running out of room. Students spend 60 percent of a small word budget describing the technology and then compress the recommendation into two sentences. The budget method above exists precisely to prevent that, and on a short document it is the difference between a pass and a return.
Performance assessment work at WGU can be revised and resubmitted with no grade penalty, so submit as soon as every aspect has a real answer. If your section carries an objective assessment, WGU objective assessments are proctored and our boundary is fixed: preparation only, with structured study, practice questions and a straight read on your preassessment result. We never sit an exam, take no part once one begins, and we neither ask for nor accept portal credentials.
Two CUs eating a whole month?
Send the E006 rubric and scenario. We map the process before and after, then hand back a tight headed plan with word targets.
Seven mistakes that cost time in E006
- Recommending technology with no process attached. If no process changes shape, nothing has been transformed.
- Benefits with no measure. Faster and better are not findings. Elapsed time, error rate and cost per transaction are.
- Criteria written after the choice. The evaluation aspect wants to see reasoning that could have produced a different answer.
- Vendor case studies as evidence. They are illustrations. Label them as such and do not let them carry the argument.
- Skipping adoption. A process change nobody adopts produces two processes, which is worse than one.
- Spending the budget on description. On a short deliverable, description is the cheapest section and it is where students overrun.
- Undated sources. In emerging technology, an undated claim is an unverifiable one.
Three questions students ask about E006
Is a 2 CU course quick?
Which emerging technologies should I write about?
Does ITEC 2030 appear separately on my Degree Plan?
Where E006 sits in WGU's programs
The July 2026 catalog places this code in 2 current WGU programs. Open a program page for the complete standard path and term positions. The live Degree Plan remains authoritative after transfer credit, substitutions, and mentor planning.
The assessments, one by one
The public catalog does not publish this course's PA/OA identity or task count. WGU Tutors publishes at most one PA manual per course and only from a WGU-controlled public rubric. Until that source exists, PA help begins from the student's real Course of Study and OA support remains preparation only.