Matsui Securities introduces Broadridge’s SaaS platform for securities lending. Factory floor efficiency accelerates with RPA. PFU announces a document processing service integrated with generative AI. And research reveals that digitalizing onboarding contributes to reducing early employee turnover.
At first glance, this seems like positive news of steady DX progress across various fields. However, executives and CTOs, I pose a fundamental question here. Beyond these individually optimized “operational DX” initiatives, have you designed your company’s “cross-functional value”?
Even as efficiency improves department by department and individual ROI begins to show, the overall effectiveness of the company’s IT investment is not maximized. This is the core of the “DX dilemma” many companies face. Today, using recent news as a springboard, we consider how management should define this “cross-functional value.”
The “Integration Gap” Beyond Siloed Optimization
The Matsui Securities case is highly instructive. Introducing a SaaS platform specialized for the “specific operational domain” of securities lending aims to streamline and accelerate growth in that area. This is typical of “business IT” investments led by operational departments. The goals are clear, and ROI is relatively easy to measure.
Similarly, factory floor RPA progresses within the context of “management IT” and operational efficiency. PFU’s PaperStream AI is a generative AI solution specialized for the “business process” of document processing. The digitalization of onboarding highlighted by Fleekdrive’s research carries strong overtones of “management IT” led by HR.
The problem lies in the tendency for these investment decisions to be made in isolation within their respective departments or business units. How can data from securities lending be leveraged from a risk management perspective? How can data from RPA-automated processes on the factory floor connect to overall supply chain optimization? How can digitalized onboarding data be fed back into talent strategy and organizational development?
Defining these “connections” is precisely the role of management. Yet, this part often remains a “blank.” Consequently, siloed DX progresses department by department, creating a state where data and systems cannot be integrated. This is the root cause of why, despite massive IT investments, the overall “intelligence” and “agility” of the enterprise fail to improve.
Three Axes for Defining “Cross-Functional Value”
So, what specifically should management define? When approving individual operational DX projects, there is a definition of “cross-functional value” that should be simultaneously questioned. It can be considered along the following three axes.
Axis 1: Data Flow and Integration into Decision-Making
Matsui Securities’ securities lending platform should generate high-frequency, high-quality data on market supply/demand and risk appetite. What management must define is the concrete scenario: “How will this data be utilized in which of our company’s decisions (e.g., investment strategy, product development, customer proposals)?”
“We’ll just store the data for now” or “We’ll make it visualizable with a BI tool” is insufficient. For instance, it’s necessary to pre-define how it will be embedded into decision-making processes, such as “making market liquidity indicators based on securities lending data a key input in our quarterly asset allocation review meetings.” This is the first step in elevating a business IT investment into management IT value.
Axis 2: Potential for Horizontal Rollout of Process Standardization
If RPA for a specific manufacturing process succeeds, consider the pathway to replicate that “success” in other departments. What PFU’s “PaperStream AI” demonstrates is the potential of an AI solution for the universal business challenge of document processing.
Management’s question should be: “How can the know-how of ‘the AI-powered unstructured data processing process’ established by this solution be horizontally applied to invoice processing in accounting, quotation receipt in sales, contract review in legal, and so on?” The key is whether value can be found beyond the cost of the individual tool, as a foundational capability for “enterprise-wide automation and intelligent operations.”
Axis 3: Visualizing the Impact of Investment in Human Capital
Fleekdrive’s research indicated a perception that digitalizing onboarding contributes to “preventing early turnover.” This is an extremely important insight. However, in many companies, measuring IT investment effectiveness stops at “man-hour reduction of X hours” or “cost reduction of X dollars.”
What management must define is how to measure and incorporate into management metrics the impact of IT-enabled investment in human capital. For example, creating a framework to track retention rates of new hires who underwent digital onboarding, the time to full productivity, reduction in manager workload, and evaluate it as “human capital investment ROI.” This positions the HR department’s “management IT” investment within the company’s overall human capital strategy.
Practical Steps: A Decision-Making Process for Management to “Connect”
Even if the theory is understood, how does one implement it? Next, we propose concrete steps to embed this “cross-functional value” perspective into the management meetings or approval processes that review individual DX projects.
Step 1: Mandate a “Cross-Functional Value Description Sheet” Upon Project Submission
For any IT investment project, no matter how small, mandate the submitting department to attach a sheet describing the following three points:
1. **Data Generated**: What new data is created, or what data sees improved accuracy/frequency due to this project?
2. **Applicability to Other Departments**: To which other departments or functions can the know-how or solution gained from this project be applied?
3. **Impact on Human Capital**: How does this project affect employee experience, skills, or engagement?
The mere existence of this sheet forces the submitting department to think beyond its silo and provides the reviewing side (management) with material for discussion from an integrated perspective.
Step 2: Redefine the CTO/IT Department’s Role as “Integration Architect”
Maintaining technically integrable states for DX initiatives progressing disparately across departments is a key role for the CTO or IT department. However, that role must not be diminished to just “cost reduction” or “security assurance.” Management should give them the mission of “designing the technical foundation for realizing cross-functional value.”
Concretely, add to their primary evaluation metrics items like establishing API standards for data linkage, building an “internal library” of commonly usable AI models or RPA components, and constructing a data catalog enabling cross-departmental data utilization.
Step 3: Establish a “Second Arrow” for Measuring Investment Effectiveness
For all IT investment projects, set a measurement plan and targets for “secondary effects” (cross-functional value), in addition to the traditional “primary effects” (direct man-hour reduction, revenue increase).
For example, for an RPA project in a department, alongside “Primary Effect: 50-hour monthly man-hour reduction,” set a target like “Secondary Effect: Create knowledge documentation for rolling out the established RPA development process to 2 other departments within 3 months.” By linking evaluation and budget allocation to the achievement of these secondary effects, departmental incentives can be shifted from “optimizing our own silo” to “creating value for the entire company.”
Conclusion: Shifting the Subject of DX from “Department” to “Enterprise”
Whether it’s Matsui Securities’ SaaS adoption or factory RPA, each individual move is undoubtedly “correct.” However, if they proceed while facing disparate directions, the corporate ship will not move forward.
The myriad “operational DX” initiatives currently underway are indeed yielding solid results at the departmental level. Yet, unfortunately, there are not many cases where this connects to the ultimate goal of enhancing overall corporate competitiveness—that is, improving the very “quality of management.”
The cause is that within the “management decisions” approving siloed optimizations, the question, “So, how do we connect these?” is missing.
Executives and CTOs. The next time you are asked to approve an individual DX project, try asking not just about cost or direct effects, but also: “How does this investment contribute to which of our company’s ‘cross-functional values’?” That question itself will be the first step towards ending siloed DX and achieving true holistic optimization of IT investment.
IT is no longer just a tool for departmental efficiency. It is the “nervous system for enterprise-wide decision-making and reproducibility” that management designs. That nervous system cannot function if it is severed at departmental segments.
Comments