DX promotion and AI utilization for SMEs starting from “¥150,000 per month,” IT operations outsourcing from “¥180,000 per month”—in recent months, a succession of such low-priced IT support services have been announced. At first glance, this might seem like welcome news for business leaders, making these services “more accessible.”
However, this is precisely the moment when leaders should pause. They must consider the true implications of outsourcing “intelligence” and “judgment” at a low cost. Are we trying to buy mere “task replacement,” or the “strategic decision-making capability” that will shape our company’s future? This distinction is the watershed for IT investment in the AI era.
The Fundamental Management Problem Masked by “Low-Cost AI Support”
First, let’s clarify the essential value provided by services like “AI365,” which have been featured in the news. The proposition of supporting “AI utilization, business automation, and DX promotion” for ¥150,000 per month (~$945 USD) appears attractive to many SME leaders. Compared to the cost of hiring specialized talent, the cost-effectiveness might seem high.
But a dangerous illusion lurks here: the idea that “if you pay money, AI utilization and DX will automatically advance.” In a manufacturing case from my consulting experience, a similar external service was introduced, yet six months later, the company found itself in a state where “convenient tools increased, but we don’t understand how they connect to sales or profit.”
The fundamental problem lies in delegating the judgment itself—”what to automate” and “which processes to apply AI to”—to an external service. This is akin to letting a chef decide not just the recipe, but the very purpose of the meal: “what you should eat.” The chef can provide technique but has no way of knowing your health or business goals.
The Structure Where IT Operations Outsourcing Optimizes Only “Management IT”
Another news item, the “IT Operations Outsourcing Service Selection Guide” and service enhancements starting from ¥180,000 per month (~$1,134 USD), must be analyzed from a similar perspective. This service primarily targets areas like security measures, device management, and network monitoring—the domain of “Management IT.” In terms of the three IT categories mentioned in our editorial policy (Business IT, Management IT, Governance IT), this is the area where “stability” is most valued.
Outsourcing “Management IT” has clear benefits. It involves high specialization and can reduce the cost of cultivating and retaining talent internally. Topics like “ransomware countermeasures” covered in free seminars are typical examples; leaders don’t need to chase the latest attack methods themselves.
However, there is a pitfall that is easily overlooked here. It is the possibility that outsourcing “Management IT” strips leaders of their “sense for IT as a whole” and their “criteria for measuring risk.” If everything is entrusted to a black-box external service, management-level judgments become hollow—questions like “what level of security investment is appropriate for our company?” or “which processes should prioritize speed even while accepting certain risks?”
As a result, the IT department (or its outsourcing service) may come to be evaluated based on “zero downtime” or “zero incidents”—turning “stability,” which is merely a means, into an end goal itself. This risks making it an entity opposed to the “speed” and “experimentation” necessary for business growth. This carries the danger of replicating the structural problems once common in many internal IT departments within external services.
The New Management Vacuum Created by “Outsourcing Judgment”
The trend of simultaneous price reduction and servitization for both AI support and IT operations outsourcing points toward a new stage: “the outsourcing of management judgment.”
Until now, outsourcing “IT technology implementation”—like system development or infrastructure construction—was mainstream. However, what is now beginning to be offered is closer to the realm of “judgment” or “strategy formulation” itself: “which AI to use and how (AI365)” or “which security measures to implement and to what extent (IT ops outsourcing/seminars).”
The danger of this “outsourcing of judgment” is that it atrophies the leader’s own “judgment muscles” and causes them to lose opportunities to deeply understand their own business structure. The owner of a retail business was advised by an external consultant to “analyze customers with AI” and introduced an expensive tool. However, because the crucial objective—”what do we want to achieve by analyzing this (new product development? retaining existing customers?)”—was ambiguous, the outcome was merely the generation of beautiful reports that never translated into concrete action.
What leaders should buy is not a ready-made “answer” or “automated task” itself, but rather “the thinking process (=intelligence) for identifying their own company’s challenges and designing solutions.” External services can act as “nutrients” to accelerate that process, but they cannot be “stand-ins” for the process itself.
Redefining the “Intelligence” Leaders Should Buy
So, in the AI era, what should leaders seek from external services, and what should they retain themselves? The key lies in utilizing the “Three IT Categories” outlined in our editorial policy as an axis for outsourcing decisions.
1. Never Relinquish Judgment Over “Business IT”
Judgment regarding AI utilization in “Business IT,” which directly connects to customer touchpoints, product development, and sales promotion, is at the core of management. For example, which algorithm to use for an e-commerce site’s recommendation engine, or what kind of customer interactions to entrust to a chatbot. These judgments cannot be made without a deep understanding of one’s own customer profile, brand value, and value proposition.
When using external services, position them as “partners who provide materials for judgment.” From a ¥150,000/month service, demand an environment for experimentation and a mechanism for data collection—e.g., “after trying initiatives A and B, this KPI moved like this.” The final judgment of “which one to adopt” should be made by the management team themselves, cross-referencing it with their own customer insights and mid-to-long-term vision.
2. Set the Objective Function for “Governance IT” Yourself
AI becomes a powerful weapon in “Governance IT” (BI tools, management dashboards, etc.), which enhances the speed and quality of decision-making. However, the objective function—”what should be visualized”—must absolutely not be delegated externally.
The metrics displayed on a management dashboard reflect the company’s very strategy. Should we look only at sales revenue, customer lifetime value (LTV), or its correlation with employee satisfaction (ES)? Without this design philosophy, no matter how much data AI analyzes, it will not yield insights meaningful for management. External services should be tasked with building the “mechanism” to collect and format data based on the set objective function and to detect anomalies early.
3. Outsource “Management IT” Only After Clearly Defining Standards
“Management IT” areas like security and networks, being highly specialized and standardized, are the most suitable for outsourcing. The crucial point here is for leaders to define for themselves, from a management risk perspective, “what and to what level” they are delegating.
While referencing information from “ransomware countermeasure seminars,” it is the leader’s job to make trade-off judgments such as: “Our company handles a lot of customer personal information, so defense in this area is non-negotiable,” or “This internal system does not require immediacy, so we can tolerate a one-day recovery time.” The “7 decision criteria” for choosing an ¥180,000/month IT ops service must be tools for evaluation against these self-defined requirements.
The Leader’s New Role in Engaging with “Low-Cost Intelligence”
The price reduction and servitization of AI support and IT operations outsourcing are making IT more accessible while simultaneously attempting to fundamentally alter the leader’s responsibilities and required capabilities.
Leaders of the past agonized over “buying or not buying” expensive, highly specialized IT technology itself. However, leaders of the future will be forced into a more advanced resource allocation judgment: deciding which of the affordably offered “intelligences” and “judgments” to keep in-house and which to outsource.
To use a culinary analogy, it’s like shifting from “complete dining out,” where everything from ingredient procurement to plating is entrusted to others, to a “semi-prepared” style. In this style, prep work and seasonings are left to professionals, but the critical steps like preparing the “broth” that defines the flavor and the final taste test (judgment) are done yourself. The latter certainly requires more effort, but it allows you to establish your own unique flavor (competitive advantage) and maintain the flexibility to adapt to change.
Before being captivated by figures like ¥150,000 or ¥180,000 per month, ask yourself once more: Are we truly willing to relinquish, for this cost, the most important “power to judge” that shapes our company’s future? Or are we trying to acquire “excellent tools” to train and amplify that power? The answer will separate the companies that survive the AI era from those that merely drift surrounded by convenient tools.
Comments