Type A: A leader in a case where a business unit takes the lead in promoting DX.

—First, could you tell us about the strengths of a leader who is driving DX primarily within a business unit when taking on the role of leader of a manufacturing DX project?

Abe: The strength of Type A is that the problem they want to solve is clear.

Because we, the ones carrying out the project, are the beneficiaries who directly receive its benefits. Since the people doing the work and the people receiving the effects are the same, we can operate based on a very simple logic.

Typically, in DX projects involving many stakeholders, it's easy for the focus to become unclear as to who will benefit, often leading to a loss of momentum. However, these individuals can visualize the concrete impact of success. As a result, they can maintain high motivation and drive.

—Conversely, what weaknesses does Type A have when it comes to promoting DX?

Abe: The weakness of Type A DX promotion is that it is difficult to secure manpower (resources).

Because they are generating significant revenue from their existing businesses and are extremely busy.

I was once told, "Getting him on a project is harder than offering 100 million yen in cash." That's because if the ace of that business unit leaves, the multi-million dollar business they're running will come to a standstill.

As a result, it becomes difficult to assign top-tier talent (Type A) to a dedicated role, making it easier for projects to stagnate due to insufficient manpower or for unexpected problems to arise.

Type B: The leader in the IT/information systems department driving DX

Abe: The strength of Type B lies in its "overall optimization" perspective, which includes operations and governance.

Because creating a system isn't the end of the process. Business divisions tend to focus on completion, but in reality, a long period of operation follows. Type B, on the other hand, can make decisions with a perspective that looks far into the future.

Furthermore, many systems are running within the company. Only Type B employees, who belong to the common department, are able to consider the impact of these systems on the overall system by comparing them side by side.

In other words, their strength lies not only in creating individual systems, but also in their ability to ensure the secure operation of the entire company's systems.

Abe: The weakness of Type B DX promotion is that while it's possible to provide the means of a system, it's not possible to directly control the business activities themselves that actually generate profits using that system.

At the initial stages of a project, there is much excitement surrounding the technical vision and future potential, such as the construction of a data integration platform. However, as time passes and management begins to ask, "What specific business results have been achieved from this investment?", the situation can become challenging.

This is because it is the business division's role to actually use the system to increase sales and reduce costs, and unless they take action, no quantifiable results will be produced.

In other words, the weakness lies in the fact that the IT department alone has a structure that makes it difficult to achieve a return on investment for a project.

Type C: Leaders in cases where the DX Promotion Department/Management Planning Department is driving DX.

Abe: The strengths of Type C are their ability to envision the overall optimal solution and their sense of balance in driving projects forward while understanding both business and IT.

Business units prioritize their own sales and efficiency, while the IT department prioritizes the stable operation of systems. In contrast, Type C has the mission of coordinating the entire company.

Therefore, it prevents departments from becoming fragmented and allows us to organize data and operations that should be standardized across the entire company. This position offers the strength of being able to align on-site needs with management direction and make efficient investment decisions.

Furthermore, when promoting DX, misunderstandings can occur because the IT department is unfamiliar with the business's revenue structure, while the business divisions are unfamiliar with the systems. Type C individuals are positioned right in the middle, making them valuable assets who can mediate between the two sides' perspectives.

While I may not be an IT expert, I understand both the profit-generating strategies sought by business divisions and the system development approaches required by the IT department. Therefore, I possess the potential to strike a balance between overall optimization and execution.

Abe: The weakness in promoting DX in Type C is the overwhelming lack of resources within the department and the mental burden of leading the team to compensate for that.

The DX Promotion Department and the Corporate Planning Department are structurally small, highly skilled teams. While the IT and business divisions have dozens or even hundreds of employees, the departments to which Type C employees belong are limited in number. Furthermore, due to the organizational structure, these departments cannot easily increase their staff. As a result, they are forced to start projects with fewer than the minimum number of people necessary for their success.

When promoting a DX project, it's necessary to bring in key personnel from other departments to compensate for resource shortages. However, top talent from each department is often busy and has strong personalities, making it extremely difficult to manage them. Type C individuals end up being overwhelmed with coordinating the team and bearing the brunt of the stress.

In other words, no matter how good the concept, a lack of resources within one's own department and the burden of coordinating with other departments can lead to the leader becoming exhausted. This is a structural weakness that undermines the driving force of Type C initiatives.

Failure case of Type A: Individual optimization

—What are some common mistakes that Type A individuals tend to make?

Abe: A typical example of failure for Type A is that they focus solely on individual optimization, that is, they push forward only based on their own convenience.

They tend to overlook the importance of integration with company-wide systems and the subsequent operation and maintenance. As a result, the systems become inflexible and require expensive maintenance.

Even if something is good for us, the IT department rejects it, saying it can't be put into operation, and the project gets scaled down.

Of course, the leaders understand intellectually that overall optimization is important. However, the company's evaluation system is not structured to promote DX in a way that optimizes the entire organization.

Business unit managers are evaluated solely on the numbers and results of their own business. Contributions to other departments and company-wide optimization are not included in the evaluation. As a result, they are inevitably forced to act with their own department's profits as their top priority.

Failure example of Type B: Mismatch with the user

Abe: There are two main patterns to the mistakes that Type B leaders tend to make.

The first issue is that there can be a mismatch in objectives and specifications between the business department and the project team.

The IT department alone cannot set business-side profit targets. Furthermore, it is not easy for them to independently create detailed, high-resolution scenarios for diverse on-site usage. As a result, systems may be built that functionally meet the requirements but do not reflect the actual business practices of the field.

This is unavoidable because the IT department and the business departments have different objectives in their roles.

Typically, IT departments prioritize governance and compatibility with existing systems to maintain organizational stability. While this is perfectly acceptable from a management perspective, it doesn't necessarily align with the responsiveness to market demands and ease of use that are required by the frontline staff.

In other words, conflicts arise as a result of each department making the right decisions in their respective roles, making them unavoidable failures even when they are known to occur.

The second common mistake is having to rework in the final stages of development.

Even if thorough agreement is reached in the early stages of a project, it is difficult for those on the ground to concretely imagine how the completed system will be integrated into their daily operations. Only after the system has been released, following a long development period, do users tend to express dissatisfaction, saying things like, "It's not what we expected," or "It doesn't fit our workflow."

This is unavoidable because humans have a characteristic that prevents them from articulating specific requests or complaints unless they see the actual, working product. Users only become aware of their latent needs after actually interacting with the completed system. These needs are then verbalized as feedback.

In other words, the problem isn't with the prior agreement process, but rather with human nature—the inability to recognize true needs until one actually touches the product—making it difficult to avoid discrepancies in understanding during later stages.

Failures of Type C: Exhaustion due to authority and coordination

Abe: A common failure seen in Type C organizations stems from the fact that the authority and resources available to drive change are not commensurate with the scale of the mission.

To promote company-wide digital transformation (DX), a strong project management function is needed to coordinate the interests of each department and, at times, to reject individual optimizations in order to optimize the overall system. However, in reality, DX promotion personnel are often juggling other duties or do not have sufficient decision-making authority.

As a result, the person in charge often ends up merely acting as a liaison, listening to requests from each department without moving forward to the implementation phase, and becoming utterly exhausted.

Furthermore, within the complex interpersonal relationships of the company, rejecting or prioritizing the opinions of specific departments or individuals is extremely difficult, both psychologically and politically. Because objective judgments cannot be made solely by internal members, the lack of a system for promoting consensus building, such as utilizing external partners as third-party perspectives, is also a contributing factor.

—Why, despite these obvious lacks of resources and authority, is the situation not improving?

Abe: The underlying reason is that organizations tend to assume that "things will work out somehow through the efforts of those on the ground." Both management and the appointed leaders are vaguely aware that the current system is burdensome and makes it difficult to achieve results. However, it is not easy to take concrete steps to structural reforms such as organizational changes, delegation of authority, or increasing staff.

As a result, projects often start with the attitude of "let's try it with the current members" without addressing the root cause, leading to situations where time simply passes by while pursuing unattainable goals. This is not a matter of individual ability, but rather a fundamental problem stemming from the organization's failure to properly estimate resource allocation in relation to the project's difficulty.

So, how can each type of leader solve these failures?
More details will be provided in the next article.

Next Article | "Practical Knowledge to Solve Common Mistakes in Manufacturing DX: A Thorough Explanation by Promotion Leader"

Digital Execution Factory: Making DX a part of organizational culture in the manufacturing industry

At Macnica, we provide manufacturing DX support services that work as a partner, helping each leader overcome setbacks by tailoring our services to their individual strengths and weaknesses.

Specifically, we provide "Digital Execution Factory," which helps to make DX a part of your organizational culture, through the following support:

• Strengthening governance systems that involve the entire company
• Accompanying the CoE, which spans business and IT departments, from concept design to launch and establishment
• A training program for specialists who can lead DX promotion on-site
• Development support using Mendix, a low-code development platform that allows you to gain small successes through agile development

Such

"Digital Execution Factory" is a know-how that only Macnica can provide in Japan, which has been optimized for the Japanese manufacturing industry based on practical knowledge established in Europe and the United States, where DX is advanced. We will accompany our customers, aiming to create a state in which the optimal DX for each customer is "spontaneously and continuously created."