The Reason Why IT Departments Couldn’t Drive Holistic Optimization

Introduction

In many companies, there are high expectations for the Information Systems Department (ISD): “We want you to focus on holistic optimization, not just departmental optimization,” “Please organize tools and systems across the board,” and “We want you to oversee the company’s entire IT landscape.” However, the reality is that systems remain siloed by department, SaaS and tools proliferate chaotically, and no one has a complete overview—a situation that has become the norm. This article does not attribute this problem to individual factors like “lack of capability” or “narrow perspective.” Instead, it frames it as a structural issue of management decisions and authority design, examining the fundamental challenges of IT strategy.

Holistic Optimization Requires “The Authority to Decide for the Whole”

First, let’s confirm a very basic premise. To drive holistic optimization, you need the authority to make decisions for the whole. Holistic optimization involves judgments such as rejecting a department’s request, accepting short-term inconveniences, making the decision to abandon existing investments, or determining company-wide priorities. These are not matters of coordination but of decision-making, which are inherently the prerogative of management.

Only “Responsibility” Was Handed to the ISD

In Japanese companies, the ISD has often been expected to bear responsibility for outcomes such as “stable operation of corporate-wide IT,” “prevention of security incidents,” and “maintaining overall system integrity.” However, on the other hand, it has not been granted the authority to halt departmental IT initiatives, reject investments, or change priorities. In other words, the ISD has been placed in a structurally contradictory position: burdened with the responsibility for holistic optimization while lacking the authority to make decisions for the whole.

It’s Only Natural That Departmental Optimization Couldn’t Be Stopped

Naturally, business departments seek to maximize their own results. They want to prioritize speed, implement tools they can use immediately, and make their own decisions. This in itself is rational and not something to be criticized. The problem lies in the fact that there was no entity within the organization with the authority to stop it. The ISD could act as a coordinator, but it was not in a position to decide, “We won’t do that company-wide” or “We will prioritize this instead.” As a result, departmental optimization accumulated rationally, while holistic optimization remained unaddressed by anyone.

Holistic Optimization Cannot Be Achieved by “Expectations” Alone

Phrases like “We want you to act with the whole in mind” and “We want you to have a bird’s-eye view” are often used. However, holistic optimization cannot be realized through expectations or attitude alone. Holistic optimization only becomes possible when the following elements are designed as a complete set:

• Holistic optimization is Authority
• Responsibility
• Evaluation

A design that grants the ISD no authority, limits its evaluation to stability and cost, and yet expects holistic optimization is logically flawed.

Why Didn’t Management Take on This Role?

Fundamentally, designing holistic optimization and determining inter-departmental priorities is the role of management. However, in many companies, IT was not viewed as an object of strategic design (DX) but was treated as a departmental matter, with coordination delegated to the ISD. As a result, a void was created where integrated judgment, which management should have provided, was missing. The ISD was expected to fill that void, yet it was granted neither the authority nor the appropriate evaluation framework.

Conclusion

The “reason why the ISD couldn’t drive holistic optimization” is not a problem of the ISD’s perspective or effort. It is the result of management abdicating its responsibility to decide for the whole and merely expecting the ISD to fulfill that role. If a company truly wants to achieve holistic optimization, management itself must redesign the system: “Who decides for the whole?” “On what basis are priorities set?” and “How is that judgment evaluated?” Unless the approach to IT investment and the structure of the IT organization is fundamentally reconsidered, the ISD will rationally remain an “organization incapable of driving holistic optimization.”