Business System Consultation Center - Our Business System ColumnVol.172 2026.02.01 Takahashi Minoru

Eliminating individual dependency lowers the barrier to entry for competitors

Thank you for your interest and continued support.
This is Takahashi from the Marketing Plan Research Laboratory.


When it comes to system development for small and medium-sized enterprises,
should be entrusted to a single person.


Whether you develop the system in-house or outsource it,
there are company presidents who believe that “a team of multiple people is best for development,”
but the reality is quite the opposite.


In many cases, entrusting the entire process to a single person
results in higher quality and lower costs.


Undertaking system development with a team of multiple people
may seem, at first glance, to speed up development.
However, in reality,
the more people on the client side (the user department for in-house projects, or the CEO and user department for outsourced projects)
(in-house developers for internal projects, or the system company’s point of contact for outsourced projects)
the more misunderstandings and misalignments arise between the client and the development team.


It’s fine to have many people on the client side—that is, the users of the system—but
the number of people on the development side—those actually building the system—should be kept as small as possible.


If the number of people on the development side is reduced to one or two,
the workload per person decreases slightly, but in return,
their concentration, seriousness, and even their drive are slightly diminished.
This is only human, even for professionals.


The increase in misunderstandings caused by a larger production team
leads to more rework, more bugs, and more “differences in nuance and interpretation of specifications.”
As a result, cost-effectiveness suffers.


A system incorporates the unique know-how, rules, and customer service practices
—specifically, their unique know-how, rules, and customer service practices—
in other words, the "nuances" of each company.
Reproducing these nuances requires a consistent understanding of the company culture mentioned above,
and it is best for a single person to consistently handle this process.


Depending on the scale and circumstances of the system, there may be cases where multiple people need to be involved in development,
during meetings and communication sessions,
it is best for a single point of contact on the production side to consistently handle all communication.
If there are multiple points of contact,
it creates a mental burden stemming from the need to keep in mind
creates a mental burden, as one must constantly be mindful of the potential for confusion and discrepancies.
This is bound to be a major source of stress for the client.


The above applies equally to both system development and maintenance.


Regardless of whether development is in-house or outsourced,
and regardless of whether it is development or maintenance costs,
The purpose of the president bearing system-related costs
is strictly for the maintenance and improvement of the company itself,
and certainly not as “training expenses to raise a flock of fledgling new SE recruits.”
We are not paying for the system itself.


When outsourcing—that is, when contracting with a systems company—
it is not uncommon for companies to use the development and maintenance environment as a training ground for new employees.
While it might be acceptable to incur in-house development and maintenance costs since they help develop your own staff,
I believe most company presidents feel that doing so with outsourced work is a bit much.


Whether it’s development or maintenance, if a single veteran handles it,
responses to requests are quick and accurate.
However, when a team of a new hire and a veteran handles the work, the cost doubles,
it leads to more miscommunication and higher costs.
From a cost-effectiveness perspective, having a single veteran handle the work is the most efficient approach.


“If there are multiple people in charge, you can rest assured even if something happens to one of them,”
I imagine some might argue.
However, in reality, that is an idealistic notion and a fantasy.


The core and most complex parts of a system
ultimately understood only by the person who created it.
While “two people” may be able to handle superficial tasks,
fundamental problem-solving and complex specification changes
are difficult unless handled by the person who understands the system best.


Furthermore,
some might argue,
.
You are absolutely right;
and the risks of “going it alone” or “being a frog in a well” certainly exist.


For this reason, system companies—especially when working on outsourced projects—must
must ensure, through documentation, materials, and even demonstrations,
to ensure that requirements are met and nuances are accurately reproduced.
through documentation, materials, and even demonstrations.
(I imagine the same responsibility is placed on in-house SE teams in-house development projects as well.)


Verbal explanations alone can lead to "he said, she said" disputes,
and, above all, they are simply insufficient as a basis for decision-making.
Having documented or demonstrated explanations reduces misunderstandings,
which will likely lead to better cost-effectiveness in the long run.


Explanations should avoid technical jargon and use business terminology that aligns with the company culture.
By having a single point of contact engage in repeated dialogue and build a relationship of trust,
the truly necessary features and nuances will become clear.
If multiple people share the responsibility, this “understanding” becomes fragmented,
and consequently increases the risk of ending up with a system that misses the mark.


This has been a long explanation, but
whether you’re developing in-house or outsourcing,
I hope this serves as a useful reference for staffing decisions during system development.


That's all, Thank you for reading.

------------------------------

■ Previous / Next Column ■

＜＜＜ Next Column Vol.173 - Attributing the elimination of individual dependency to lowering barriers to entry 2026.03.01

＞＞＞ Previous Column Vol.171 - The secret to being the sole person in charge 2026.01.01

Back to Column List