The Trap of Psychological Lock-In Caused by Excel Dependency

The Real Reason Excel Hinders DX

“Our company still can’t break free from Excel.”

It’s not uncommon to hear this kind of complaint. I frequently receive consultations from business owners and IT department heads about how to change Excel-dependent workplaces.

Even in the latest news, the theme “Why we still can’t let go of Excel: The true nature of the psychological hurdles hindering DX in the workplace” has been covered. However, the essence of this problem is not as simple as “low IT literacy.”

There is a structural reason why workplaces cling to Excel: it’s a result of management failing to define IT.

The True Nature of Workplace Psychology: “Deferring Learning Costs”

When introducing a new system, you almost always hear the voice, “Excel is enough.” This is not just a status quo bias; it’s also a rational judgment.

For the workplace, Excel is already a learned tool. Introducing new SaaS or business systems inevitably incurs learning costs. Moreover, it is the workplace that bears these costs, not management.

Herein lies the structural problem of IT adoption. Management may call for “DX promotion,” but they don’t secure learning time for the workplace, nor do they tolerate a temporary drop in productivity. As a result, the workplace continues to choose the option of “making do with Excel.”

This stems from management defining the purpose of IT adoption only as “improving workplace operational efficiency.” Ideally, IT adoption should be pursued with the goals of “enhancing the quality of management decisions” and “designing repeatable business processes.”

The Structure of Accumulating Psychological Debt

When the workplace continues to choose Excel, a kind of “psychological debt” accumulates. Excel files packed with custom functions, macros, and complex cell references become black boxes.

When told to “migrate to a new system,” the workplace resists. This is because only a few people understand the contents of those Excel files, making the migration work dependent on specific individuals.

Management merely gives the order to “stop using Excel” without designing the migration process. As a result, the workplace chooses to maintain the status quo, and DX stalls.

Learning from Local Government DX Cases: Digitalization of Councils

On the other hand, there are interesting examples. One is the digitalization of council operations by Semukan, featured in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ “Local Government DX Case Studies.”

In local government councils, paper documents and in-person proceedings are the norm. However, digitalization is progressing even here. The key point is that this case targets “the business process of council operations itself” for digitalization.

Digitalizing councils is not just about converting documents to PDF. It involves redesigning the entire flow, including the deliberation process for proposals, voting methods, and the creation of minutes.

This serves as a good reference for management when defining the purpose of IT adoption. In an organization like a local government, the council is a decision-making body. Digitalizing that decision-making process is a true practice of “management IT.”

The Essence of Digitalization as Management IT

What the local government case shows is that the purpose of digitalization is not “operational efficiency” but “improving the quality of decision-making.”

Through council digitalization, council members can review documents anytime, anywhere, making better use of deliberation time. Additionally, real-time tallying of voting results improves the speed of decision-making.

This is precisely the domain where management should define IT. Digitalization as management IT is not merely about replacing tools; it’s about redesigning business processes and decision-making mechanisms.

The Danger of “Borrowed DX” Driven by Subsidy Dependency

Another piece of news reports the holding of a webinar supporting DX investment using digitalization and AI adoption subsidy programs. While DX investment using subsidies seems attractive, there are pitfalls here too.

IT adoption driven by subsidies carries the risk of introducing tools without management defining the purpose of IT.

Systems introduced because “there’s a subsidy” often ignore the workplace’s business processes, resulting in “dead systems” that go unused. This is evidence that management sees IT only as “cost reduction” rather than “investment.”

The Ambiguity of Purpose Lurking in Subsidies

When utilizing subsidies, the application must state the “purpose of introduction.” However, in many cases, this purpose remains abstract, such as “operational efficiency” or “productivity improvement.”

What is truly needed is a concrete definition: “Which business processes will be changed and how?” and “As a result, which management indicators will improve?” If the purpose stated in the subsidy application remains vague, it becomes impossible to measure the effects after introduction, and the workplace ends up reverting to Excel.

The Price of Management Not Defining IT

As we have seen, both Excel dependency and subsidy-driven DX ultimately lead to the same fundamental problem: “Management has not defined the purpose of IT.”

When management fails to define IT, the workplace chooses tools based on their own convenience. The result is Excel dependency, reliance on specific individuals, and stagnation of DX.

Three Definitions Management Should Make

So, what exactly should management define? I believe the following three points are crucial.

First is the “purpose of IT.” Is this IT for business growth (business IT), for improving the quality of decision-making (management IT), or for stable operations (management IT)? It starts with clarifying this classification.

Second is the “definition of success.” Define what “success” looks like after IT adoption using specific metrics. For example, a concrete goal like “shorten the monthly closing submission deadline from 5 days to 3 days.”

Third is the “migration process.” Design the schedule and structure for transitioning from current Excel-based operations to the new system. At this point, it is essential to secure learning time for the workplace and have the resolve to tolerate a temporary drop in productivity.

Conclusion: The Key to Unlocking Psychological Lock-In Lies in Management’s Resolve

The psychological lock-in caused by Excel dependency is not a technical issue but a problem of management decision-making. The workplace cannot let go of Excel because management has not defined the purpose and process of IT adoption.

Before relying on subsidies and before introducing new SaaS, first define your company’s purpose for IT. Then, design the migration process together with the workplace. This is the true first step toward DX.

When management defines IT, the workplace’s psychological lock-in will naturally dissolve.