The recently held “6th Digitalization & DX Promotion Exhibition (ODEX).” Within it, there was a section called the “Accounting & Finance Support EXPO,” while in another area, a demo was held for “Mill,” an agent that visualizes legacy systems using “source code analysis x conversational AI.” At first glance, it looks like a healthy gathering of diverse digitalization solutions. However, when viewed from an executive perspective, a serious “IT disconnect” emerges. This is not merely a matter of exhibition layout. It reflects the very structure of fragmented IT strategy that is progressing in many companies, left unaddressed by management.
The Reality Where “Accounting DX” and “System AI” Do Not Intersect
How much do these neighboring solutions at the exhibition actually communicate within a real company? The department advancing digitalization of accounting tasks with invoice receipt agency services, and the technical department tackling legacy system visualization and risk analysis with the AI agent “Mill.” Their objectives are, in many cases, completely disconnected.
The objective function of the accounting department is “operational efficiency and reduction of human error.” Early acquisition of invoice data and process automation are the values. On the other hand, what the technical department seeks from tools like “Mill” is “visualization of technical debt and optimization of maintenance costs.” Although both are IT investments of the same company, they share no common purpose or integrated evaluation criteria. This disconnect is nothing but the result of management stuffing activities with different objectives into a single box called “IT” and giving each independent budgets and KPIs.
The Three “IT Kingdoms” Created by Management
The composition of this exhibition directly reflects the three independent “IT kingdoms” that exist within many companies.
The first is the kingdom of “Operational Efficiency IT.” The cluster of tools gathered at the Accounting & Finance Support EXPO corresponds to this. Typical examples are accounting SaaS like Freee and Money Forward Cloud, and invoice processing services utilizing RPA. Decision-making here tends to be completed at the department head level, with “man-hour reduction effect” being the primary judgment criterion.
The second is the kingdom of “Infrastructure & Security IT.” News like Pentasecurity’s data encryption platform “D.AMO” being certified as a “Saitama DX Partner” indicates movements in this domain. The value here is “risk avoidance and compliance response,” led by the IT/Information Systems department or internal control department. Investment decisions are made by comparing against “estimated risk loss amounts,” but such calculations are extremely difficult.
The third is the kingdom of “Technological Innovation & Business IT.” System analysis by AI agents like “Mill” can be said to be the cutting edge of this domain. The CTO and development departments are interested, with objectives being “maintaining/enhancing technological competitiveness” or “building infrastructure for new business development.” Evaluation is conducted along mid-to-long-term technology roadmaps.
The problem is that these three kingdoms are not connected by a common “company objective function.” Each moves with its own logic and budget, with data and processes remaining fragmented.
The “Digitalization Islands” and Business Risks Created by the Disconnect
When this fragmentation becomes routine, mutually uncooperative “digitalization islands” are born within the company. The accounting department streamlines invoice data in the cloud, but that data is not utilized for the business department’s real-time decision-making. Even if the technical department discovers system inefficiencies with AI, no analysis is conducted that directly links it to improving the cost structure of accounting operations.
More serious is that this state accumulates “invisible risks.” Let’s give an example. At one mid-sized company, the accounting department introduced an excellent cloud invoice service, reducing processing time by 50%. Simultaneously, the business department introduced another SaaS for customer management, improving sales management efficiency. The two systems were capable of API integration, but were left unconnected due to high inter-departmental coordination costs.
As a result, the “payee data” in the accounting system and the “customer transaction history data” in the sales system are not integrated. Even if one tries to conduct AI-based counterparty credit management or supplier concentration risk analysis in this state, it’s impossible because the data is fragmented. While management receives reports of individual digitalization successes, they are missing out on the essential value of digitalization: integrated, data-driven management decisions.
The case of document digitalization in facilities for persons with disabilities is also insightful from this perspective. Digitalization aimed at increasing wages certainly holds important social value. However, how is the digital document data generated there utilized for analyzing facility operational efficiency or for policy planning in broader welfare administration? Without a vision for that next step, even hard-won digitalization risks ending as an “island.”
The First Step in “IT Integration” Management Must Take: Redefining the Objective Function
So, how should management bridge this “IT disconnect” symbolized by the exhibition floor? The first step is not to question the pros and cons of introducing individually optimized tools. It is to confront a more fundamental question that comes before that.
“What is the common objective function for our company’s overall IT investment?”
If management cannot answer this question clearly, every department will utilize IT according to their own convenient interpretation, and the disconnect will only deepen. A common objective function could take forms such as:
- “All IT investments must contribute to shortening the lead time to value delivery for customers.”
- “Shorten the cycle from data generation to management decision from the current X days to Y days.”
- “Increase business reproducibility (a mechanism that yields consistent results regardless of who performs the task).”
Once this common purpose is defined, both “Accounting DX” and “System AI” can be evaluated with the same yardstick. Invoice processing automation should be evaluated from the perspective of “speed of making payment data visible to management.” System analysis AI should be evaluated from the perspective of “man-hours required to extract necessary data for decision-making from core systems.”
The “Connecting Function” is Management’s Responsibility
Technically, it may seem like a problem solvable by API integration or data integration platforms (DWH, data lakes). However, the root cause is not technical, but lies in the nature of management decision-making. Is management regularly bringing the representatives of the three IT kingdoms (Accounting Head, IT/IS Head, CTO) to the same table and making them explain their IT investment plans in light of the common objective function?
As concrete actions, I would like to propose the following three points.
First, establish an “IT Investment Evaluation Committee.” When any department requests IT-related budget, obligate them to explain, using a common format, their “contribution to the company-defined IT objective function.” Question not just man-hour reduction effects, but how it contributes to the company’s overall data flow and decision-making speed.
Second, consider appointing a “Chief Data Officer (CDO).” Their role is not technical integration, but “designing the flow of data between business processes.” Give them the authority and responsibility to understand where accounting data and sales data are fragmented and to promote cross-departmental projects to resolve it.
Third, unify tool selection criteria. Explicitly add criteria for judging future integration potential, such as “Does it offer open APIs?” or “Can it output in the company-defined standard data format (e.g., JSON)?” This is a perspective that evaluates a tool’s position within an ecosystem, not just individual vendor assessment.
DX Promotion Exhibitions Are a Venue for “Questions,” Not “Answers”
Venues like the “Digitalization & DX Promotion Exhibition” must not end as mere places to browse the latest tools. The array of diverse, fragmented solutions on display should function as a mirror reflecting the “disconnect” inherent in one’s own IT strategy.
When looking at accounting efficiency tools, executives should ask: “Which of our company’s decisions will the data generated by this tool make faster and more reliable, and by how much?” When looking at system analysis AI, ask: “How does this visualization connect not just to reducing technical debt costs, but to discovering business opportunities?”
The IT disconnect is not a problem tools can solve. It is the result of management failing to reflect on its own decision-making approach and continuing to treat IT as merely a collection of “convenient tools.” The first step to resolving the fragmentation indicated by the exhibition floor layout begins with placing “Unification of the IT Objective Function” on the executive meeting agenda. Otherwise, no matter how many excellent tools are introduced, companies will continue to lose sight of the integrated value they should gain, stranded on digitalization “islands.”
Comments