The importance of DX has become widely recognized, and an increasing number of companies are appointing DX personnel to work on tool selection, data utilization, and business process reviews. However, when actually proceeding, they sometimes face challenges such as "not spreading to Sites as expected", "implemented tools not being fully utilized", and "data being collected but not leading to utilization". In this article, we examine five common pitfalls that DX personnel tend to encounter and consider DX that takes root in Sites.
Common Issue 1: Choosing tools before determining objectives
Before you know it, DX discussions sometimes begin with tool selection. Among various options such as AI, IoT, cloud, RPA, and BI tools, this is a case of thinking "we must first implement something new".
Of course, tool implementation itself is not bad. Appropriate tools can be a great asset in advancing operational efficiency and data utilization. However, if implementation proceeds while the issues to be solved remain vague, operations begin without "what it will be used for" being shared within the company.
As a result, situations arise in Sites such as "only input work has increased", "running in parallel with existing Excel management", and "unable to master it despite it being convenient". The tools that were implemented are perceived as burdens before they can lead to operational improvements.
What is important in DX is not deciding "which tool to use" first, but clarifying "what you want to change". The necessary mechanisms and data to collect will vary depending on the desired state, such as reducing work time, understanding equipment status, or eliminating person-dependent operations. DX starts not with "what to implement" but with "what to change". Before selecting the latest technology, it is important to first identify the issues within Sites and operations.
Common Issue 2: Deciding the final form before involving Sites
Despite having prepared materials and plans, at the Sites briefing, questions such as "who will input this" and "how does this connect to current work" arise, and the discussion stalls.
DX personnel are in a position to advance initiatives with company expectations. Therefore, they try to thoroughly prepare implementation plans, operational rules, system configurations, etc. in advance. However, if the final form is decided without sufficiently listening to Sites voices, the mechanisms will not match actual operations.
Even if the personnel side thinks they have considered it well, from Sites's perspective, it tends to be perceived as "not matching the work flow", "more screens to check", or "more effort instead". In such cases, Sites is not necessarily opposed to DX. Rather, precisely because they know daily operations well, they easily notice parts that do not match operational reality.
Sites reactions can be received not as factors that stop the initiative, but as hints for improvement. To make DX take root in Sites, it is essential not to unilaterally present a final form, but to understand Sites difficulties and work flows from an early stage. By listening small and testing small while proceeding, you can move closer to a form that is easy for Sites to use.
Common Issue 3: Being satisfied with just collecting data
There is a dashboard, but it is not really used in daily decisions—such situations are also common in DX initiatives.
When sensors and systems are implemented, information that was previously difficult to see can be grasped through numbers and graphs. For example, being able to see equipment operation status, energy usage, and environmental data such as temperature, humidity, and CO2 concentration is significant progress.
On the other hand, there are many cases where even when data is collected, it does not progress to utilization. For example, in meetings, conventional rules of thumb and intuition are prioritized, and data is not sufficiently used as decision-making material. Also, situations where viewing numbers itself becomes the purpose and does not lead to subsequent improvements are common.
Data alone cannot change Sites. What is important is what to decide based on collected data and what actions to connect it to. Only when there are specific uses, such as detecting signs of abnormalities early using changes in temperature, current values, vibration, etc. as clues, issuing alerts when certain values are exceeded, or reviewing operations while monitoring trends in energy usage and CO2 concentration, does data lead to Sites improvements.
Visualization is not the goal, but the entrance to the next decision. The perspective of changing data from "something to view" to "something to use" is essential for advancing DX.
Common Issue 4: Aiming for large results from the start
It is natural to think "if we are going to advance DX, we want to produce large company-wide results". Various expectations are placed on DX, such as operational efficiency, cost reduction, productivity improvement, and creation of new value. However, if you aim for company-wide deployment or large-scale system renewal without organizing the desired vision and priorities, stakeholder coordination increases and the scope to be considered expands unexpectedly. As a result, while the plan grows larger, it becomes difficult to take the actual first step.
DX does not necessarily need to start large from the beginning. By starting with a limited scope, such as one department, one facility, or one operation, it becomes easier to confirm issues and effects. Even with small initiatives, if results such as operations becoming easier, decisions becoming faster, or waste becoming visible emerge, internal understanding also spreads more easily.
What is important is not aiming for a perfect form from the start, but starting small and expanding while learning. DX that fits Sites is not something completed at once, but grows through accumulated trial and error.
Common Issue 5: Explaining correctly but not getting through to the audience
Despite explaining technically correctly, the audience's response is weak—it is not uncommon to have such concerns while advancing DX.
DX personnel need to explain to people in various positions. They explain return on investment to management, convey the meaning of new operations to Sites, and coordinate with related departments about systems and data handling. At this time, terms such as AI, IoT, cloud, edge, API, and data-driven, while necessary words for personnel, can become words that create distance for listeners. Even if the explanation is correct, if "what will ultimately change" or "how it relates to our operations" is not conveyed, it becomes difficult to lead to understanding or cooperation.
What is important for Sites are points such as "will work become easier", "will double entry decrease", and "can we notice troubles earlier". For management, the focus of interest is "what effects can be expected" and "which issue resolution it connects to". What people want to know differs slightly depending on the audience.
DX personnel are required not only to explain technology and mechanisms, but also to play the role of translating words according to the audience's position. Rather than using technical terms, conveying in words connected to the audience's operations and issues becomes a step toward DX that takes root in Sites.
Summary
While DX tends to emphasize technology, it is actually an initiative that spans operations, organization, Sites understanding, and data utilization. Even personnel well-versed in technology will encounter situations where they cannot proceed as expected. Using the common issues introduced in this article as a guide, let's review the approach to DX once again. Clarifying issues to be solved, listening to Sites voices, utilizing data for decisions, and sharing in words that convey. These small accumulations lead to DX that takes root in Sites.