What Was Different About Overseas Companies?

Introduction

When considering the disconnect of IT in Japanese companies, it is often said that “overseas companies are more advanced in IT.” However, the fundamental difference is not the level of technology or the scale of IT investment. This article organizes why overseas companies were able to integrate IT into management relatively smoothly, not as praise for success stories, but as differences in decision-making structures and underlying assumptions.

IT Was Not a “Special Domain”

In many overseas companies, IT was not initially carved out as a “specialized domain.” IT was naturally included in the process of thinking about how to build a business, how to scale it, and how to replicate it. In other words, IT was a prerequisite for business design, not an object to be optimized after the fact.

The Reason the Term “IT Strategy” Was Unnecessary

In overseas companies, the term “IT strategy” was not emphasized as much as in Japan. This is because IT was not separated from management strategy. Thinking about business strategy led to discussions about IT, and discussing IT led to discussions about business structure. In this state, there was no need to deliberately create a separate IT strategy. The strategy was one from the beginning.

The Decision-Making Authority Was Clear from the Start

In overseas companies, it was relatively clear who made important decisions regarding IT, in which meetings, and based on what criteria. This was possible precisely because IT was not treated as special. IT, like other management decisions, was treated as part of management’s responsibility.

Clear Role Division Between Specialists and Management

In overseas companies as well, IT specialists played an important role. However, their position was not that of a proxy or final decision-maker for management. They presented options, explained risks, and assessed feasibility—essentially, they supported management decisions. Because this role division was clear, delegation was less likely to devolve into abdication.

Failures Were Treated as “Learning Opportunities”

Overseas companies also experienced numerous IT failures. The important difference lay in how failures were handled. They confirmed whose decision it was, verified which assumptions were wrong, and updated the criteria for the next decision. Failures were treated as material for validating decisions, not as personal incompetence.

Management and IT Were Discussed on the Same Timeline

In Japanese companies, a timeline misalignment often arises: “Management: medium-to-long term, IT: short-term response.” On the other hand, in overseas companies, business growth curves, IT scalability, and organizational scale were discussed on the same timeline. This made it harder for short-term optimization and long-term design to become disconnected.

A Difference in Structure, Not Culture

The differences with overseas companies are often explained by factors such as individual IT literacy, national character, or cultural temperament. However, the essence lies in a structural difference: at which decision-making layer IT was placed. Whether IT was placed inside or outside of management decisions. That difference created a significant long-term gap.

What Japanese Companies Should Learn

What Japanese companies should learn from overseas companies is not tools or organizational forms. The following assumptions are things that can be reclaimed even now.

• Do not treat IT as special.
• Do not separate IT from strategy.
• Decide the decision-making authority first.

The Next Question to Ask

Comparing with overseas companies is not about determining superiority or inferiority. What is important is the question, “Why couldn’t Japanese companies adopt the same assumptions?” The next article will address the correlation between Japanese-style management and the undervaluation of IT, delving into how these assumptions became entrenched.