Why “Zero Incidents” Should Not Be the Highest Praise

“IT is Too Conservative” Might Be Management’s Fault

IT departments are often evaluated on “not causing incidents.” This seems correct at first glance. However, as long as this remains the “highest praise,” neither DX nor IT strategy can move forward. This article uncovers the root cause of this structure. It provides a perspective for executives, CTOs, and IT professionals to take the first step toward transformation together.

Stable Operation is a Prerequisite, Not a KPI

A factory running daily is a given. Finance closing the books is a core duty. The stable operation of IT systems is the same kind of “prerequisite.” What should truly be evaluated lies beyond that. It’s “what value IT brought to the business.” The focus should be on “how it improved the quality and speed of management decisions.” Yet, in reality, “not causing downtime” receives the highest praise. Where does this distortion come from?

Management Only Asked IT for “Stability”

The root cause lies in management’s definition of IT’s role. When the IT department was first established, management’s request was clear: “Keep existing operations running accurately and stably.” IT was positioned as “infrastructure supporting operations”—not an agent of change or a subject for ROI discussions. Management’s interest in IT focused solely on “Is it running properly?” It was a natural progression for performance metrics to converge on “uptime” and “incident count.”

Undefined Value is Neither Measured Nor Evaluated

Management did not define IT as a “source of competitive advantage.” Therefore, no metrics existed to measure that. The very question of “which decisions did our IT investment enable?” may not have existed in the organization. Only what is measurable gets evaluated. “Incident count” is easy to quantify, and responsibility is clear. The structure where evaluation is optimized for “zero incidents” was born here.

The Organizational Behavior Pattern Created by “Zero-Incident Evaluation”

Evaluation metrics dictate human behavior. In an organization where the highest praise is for “zero incidents,” the rational choice for IT becomes the following:

• Avoid virtually all changes
• Become passive about adopting new technologies or vendors
• View urgent requests from business units as “risk”
• Prioritize short-term stability over long-term investment

This is not a matter of individual capability. It is the result of behaving “correctly” within the given evaluation system.

The Role Redefinition Required from Executives and the CTO

To drive transformation, the “role definition” must change before the evaluation does. Executives and the CTO can define the following roles for IT:

• A department that builds business reproducibility and scalability
• Owners of the “decision-support platform” that enhances the speed and quality of management decisions
• Responsible for “creating options” to secure future growth opportunities through technology

When the role changes, the metrics to measure it naturally change too. Alongside incident count, metrics like “service release frequency,” “development man-hour reduction rate,” and “number of new customers acquired through data utilization” become relevant.

The Next Step IT Should Take

There’s no need to remain confined to the current evaluation system. The IT department can take proactive steps. That is reporting outcomes in “business language.” In addition to technical stability reports, create materials that answer the following questions:

• How did our activities last month contribute to achieving which business goals?
• Which operational dependencies did we eliminate, reducing human risk?
• What foundational investments did we make to lower future costs?

This begins to shift the foundation of dialogue from “stability” to “value creation.”

Changing Evaluation Requires Definition, Not Slogans

Simply shouting “IT should be more aggressive!” changes nothing. What must change is management’s fundamental definition of “what the IT department is for.” When this definition changes, the evaluation system, budget allocation, and talent requirements all transform in tandem. True DX is nothing other than this transformation of role definition. In your organization, is IT a “cost center” or an “engine for value creation”? The journey of transformation begins with this question.