The Myth of “IT Should Be Left to the Experts”

Introduction

When many business leaders discuss IT, they operate on an unconscious premise: “IT is highly specialized, so it should be left to the experts.” While this may seem like a reasonable and responsible decision at first glance, this very mindset is the greatest myth that has pushed IT outside the realm of management decision-making and, in the long run, constrained organizational agility. This article examines how the narrative of “IT should be left to the experts” has transformed from delegation to abdication within the structure of management decision-making.

What “Delegation” Was Originally Meant to Be

Healthy delegation in management refers to a relationship where management defines the objectives and constraints, and experts choose the optimal means within that scope. In other words, management decides the purpose, and experts consider the methods. As long as this division of roles functions, delegation can be an effective form of decision-making.

The Moment Delegation Broke Down in IT

However, in the realm of IT, this healthy delegation gradually eroded. Against a backdrop of rapid technological advancement, a growing distance from management, and the intangible nature of outcomes, management began to delegate even the definition of objectives, setting of success criteria, and judgment of responsibility in case of failure to the experts. As a result, delegation transformed into an abdication of responsibility.

The Peril of the “Delegate Because We Don’t Understand” Decision

The decision to “delegate because we don’t understand” may appear humble and rational on the surface, but in management decision-making, “not understanding” is not a valid reason to be exempt from making a judgment. Should we invest despite not understanding? Should we stop? Should we postpone defining the terms? These are all judgments that management must own. The moment these are delegated to experts, the decision-making entity disappears.

Experts Are Not Proxies for Management Judgment

The role of IT experts (such as systems engineers or IT consultants) is to show what is technically possible, which options are realistic, and what risks exist. However, they are not proxies for management judgment regarding what the business aims to achieve, which risks to take, or what to give up on. When this boundary becomes blurred, IT becomes a domain for which no one is truly responsible.

The Distortion of Evaluation and Responsibility Created by the Myth

The myth that “IT should be left to the experts” has also distorted the structure of evaluation and responsibility. Success is attributed to the efforts of the frontline, while failure is blamed on external factors or the inherent difficulty of the technology, leaving the crucial management decisions themselves unexamined. Within this structure, failures are not learned from, and the same flawed decisions are repeated.

Why Has This Myth Survived?

The reason this myth has persisted for so long is that it has been convenient for management. It allows them to avoid bearing decision-making responsibility, use specialization as a reason to evade explanation, and ensures that even when problems arise, the underlying structure itself is rarely questioned. Consequently, IT has become ossified as a “domain where, precisely because it was delegated, no one is really deciding.”

What Should Have Been Delegated Was Only the “Means”

What management could have legitimately relinquished were only the “means,” such as technology selection and implementation methods. Questions like: What is the purpose of using IT? Which business objectives (such as DX or operational efficiency) should it serve? To what extent should IT be entrusted? These were questions that management should have owned from beginning to end.

The Next Question to Ask

The important point is not to stop trusting experts. The crucial step is for management itself to articulate the boundary between what can be delegated and what must not be. The success of an IT strategy begins with this delineation of responsibility. In the next article, we will explore why failures in IT investment often go unaccounted for, delving deeper into the further consequences born from this myth.