We’re Making Decisions, So Why Aren’t They Leading to Results?
In many companies, IT-related meetings are held frequently, proposals circulate, and budgets are allocated. On the surface, decision-making seems to be functioning. However, don’t we often hear conflicting voices simultaneously? From CTOs and IT managers: “We can’t get management’s understanding,” “It’s hard to explain the ROI.” And from executives: “We can’t see what the money is being spent on,” “We’re not achieving the expected results.”
The root of this disconnect lies in the “quality of the IT investment decision-making process itself.” Decisions are being made, but their “purpose,” “accountability,” and “success criteria” are not shared. This is the pervasive “gap” in IT investment within Japanese companies. This article proposes a practical framework to fill this gap and directly connect management strategy with IT investment.
Three Moments When IT Investment Becomes a “Subject-less Decision”
First, let’s examine the typical patterns where this decision-making gap arises. In these moments, the essential purpose of the investment becomes blurred.
1. The “Let’s Just Implement It” Moment: Tool-Driven Judgment
This is the case of adopting a SaaS solution because “our competitors are using it” or “it has a good reputation.” For example, project management tools like Asana or Notion are excellent, but the purpose for introducing them—the “why”—is vague. As a result, a tool-first business process is created, leading to the paradoxical outcome of increasing the operational burden on the front lines.
2. The “Budget Utilization” Moment: Extending Past Decisions by Inertia
This involves decisions to extend past choices inertially, such as server or core system updates, or renewing support contracts. This is not “investment” but “maintenance cost.” However, many companies fail to distinguish between the two, solidifying a state where “80% of the IT budget is consumed by maintaining existing systems.”
3. The “Local Optimization” Moment: Piecemeal Departmental Approvals
When individual departments adopt cloud services separately (e.g., the marketing department’s HubSpot, the accounting department’s freee), management often gives piecemeal approvals, reasoning “it’s a small amount” or “the department head’s judgment is sufficient.” While rational individually, this leads to a “SaaS spaghetti” state company-wide, where data is fragmented and integration costs become enormous.
These judgments are all “subject-less decisions” where the subject and purpose—”who approved this expenditure, and for what objective?”—are missing.
Filling the Gap: The “Three Questions” Executives Must Ask
So, how should executives and IT leaders fill this gap? We advocate for three simple questions that must be asked in every IT investment decision-making forum, rather than a complex framework.
First Question: Which “Timeframe” and Which “Metric” Does This Investment Move?
The effects of IT investment can be clearly categorized by timeframe.
- Short-term (~3 months): “Cost Reduction / Effort Reduction”
Typified by business automation using RPA or Zapier. This can be quantified as “reducing XX hours of work per month, saving an equivalent amount in personnel costs.” - Medium-term (3 months ~ 1 year): “Creating / Expanding Revenue Opportunities”
This includes implementing a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system or marketing automation. Metrics could be “reducing lead acquisition cost by XX%” or “increasing customer lifetime value by XX%.” - Long-term (1 year ~): “(Building) a Source of Competitive Advantage”
This involves building a proprietary data platform or systematically developing digital talent. Since direct numerical targets are difficult to set, these must be linked to strategic goals like “gaining share in the XX market” or “establishing the foundation for new business YY.”
Clearly position every investment proposal within one of these three timeframes and identify the specific “metric” it should move. Vague terms like “improving efficiency” are forbidden.
Second Question: Does the “Evidence” for the Decision Lie Before or After the Fact?
Many IT investment decisions are based on hopeful speculation (“if it succeeds, we’ll profit”)—evidence that only exists after the fact. We must shift this to decisions based on “evidence before the fact.”
Comments