Introduction
In Japanese corporations, it is not uncommon for the Information Systems department (often called “Jōshisu”) to have been established under or originated from the General Affairs or Administration division. This fact is often dismissed as a “unique historical quirk of Japanese companies,” but that is not an essential explanation. This article revisits the reasons why IT departments emerged from General Affairs by examining the “management decisions of the time” and the “definition of IT.” The goal is not to evaluate or criticize IT departments, but to structurally clarify why such an organizational placement was deemed rational and why that judgment has remained unchanged to this day.
What Was the Purpose of Introducing IT at the Time of Its Inception?
The primary purpose of introducing IT (then called data processing or information processing) into Japanese companies was to improve the efficiency of administrative tasks. Specifically, these included:
- Accounting, personnel, and payroll processing
- Inventory and procurement management
- Creation and aggregation of various forms and reports
These were not activities directly aimed at growing the business, but rather management functions to accurately and stably maintain existing operations. For management at the time, IT was not positioned as a “strategic asset to create competitive advantage,” but as a tool to perform clerical work—previously done manually—more cheaply, quickly, and without errors. At this point, IT was already placed in the context of “defense and support,” not “offense.”
Where Should IT for Management Have Been Placed?
Given that IT’s role was to improve the efficiency of administrative tasks, its jurisdiction was naturally limited. It needed to be closely involved with accounting, personnel, and general affairs, handle company-wide rules and procedures, and require coordination across operational departments. The division that met these conditions was General Affairs & Administration. Therefore, the decision to place “IT supporting cross-company administrative tasks” under General Affairs can be said to have been extremely natural and rational from a management perspective at the time. The crucial point is that management did not make a wrong decision at this stage.
The Problem Arose “Afterward”
IT eventually permeated core areas of business activities, such as production control, sales management, customer data, and entire business processes. However, in many companies, management did not redefine IT’s position. Organizationally, it remained under General Affairs, with expected roles being “stable operation” and “zero downtime,” and key performance indicators focused on cost reduction and operational efficiency. IT became an entity not involved in business design or investment decisions. As a result, the IT department became fixed in the role of “supporting the prerequisites for business, but not being the entity that designs the business.” This is not an issue of capability or attitude, but a consequence of the role definition given by management.
Not “Born from General Affairs,” but “Placed There by Management”
When discussing IT departments, it is often explained that “Japanese IT departments originated from General Affairs, which is why they became defensive.” However, the causality is reversed. Management defined IT as a tool for control, placed it under the control division (General Affairs) because it was a control tool, and did not update that definition. As a result, the IT department became confined to a defensive role. In other words, the General Affairs origin is not the cause but the result; the root cause consistently lies in “management’s definition of IT.”
What This Question Is Really Asking
The question, “Why did IT departments originate from General Affairs?” is not meant to explain the past of IT departments. Essentially, it poses the following questions:
- How has management treated IT?
- When should that definition have been updated?
- Is that definition still valid today?
Many companies struggling with DX (Digital Transformation) or IT department reform have not reclaimed this definition before addressing organizational or personnel issues.
Conclusion
The problem is not that IT departments originated from General Affairs. The problem is that management did not redefine the meaning of IT even as its role transformed. The discussion on how to reposition the IT department should be treated not as an issue of organizational theory or human resources, but as a management decision-making problem of how to redefine IT. Unless this question is confronted, the role of the IT department will not change in essence, even if its name or placement is altered.
Comments