The new word DX is often found here and there in today's books.
Of course, it's not a new word anymore, but I think it has spread rapidly.
When I searched for the word DX on Google, I noticed the title of Nikkei X Tech, "Building apps on DX platform, using containers in place".
In the article, there was the following sentence.
"Once the platform and system architecture for promoting DX (digital transformation) has been decided, we will consider how to design and build various applications on that platform."
It didn't come to me.
People in the IT industry have a job of introducing software, so I'm not sure, but
When you want to utilise IT, it is essential to narrow down the target work, analyse it, and kaizen.
IT is just a means.
Many people misunderstand this, and after this DX boom is over, a lot of inefficient work remains.
There may be many new jobs that IT software couldn't handle or jobs that support IT software.
At first, the phrase "any job can be replaced by IT" did not begin with DX, but how much was it used in the process of computer penetration?
And even though I believed it and started working, I ended up saying, "It wasn't supposed to be like this."
If you forget the original position of using KAIZEN's process and use the software if necessary, you will accumulate repeated mistakes.
Mega Bank is causing a lot of IT-related scandals.
According to one theory, Mega Bank has grown due to repeated mergers, so it seems that it has failed to integrate the systems of each bank before the merger.
Initially, it is said that it is difficult to freely change the work method of the vendor who undertook the creation of each company's software because it is an old-fashioned, water hole type.
The software is made in the same way as the joint venture in the construction industry.
The main contractor divides the work and allocates it to each subcontractor.
It would be nice if the prime contractor had complete control of the subcontractor, but the interests flicker.
It is said that it is difficult to reform this form because Japan has the interests of the prime contractor.
On the other hand, in the US Department of Defense, software development methods are evolving steadily.
So it's called Dev Ops, Dev Sec Ops.
Dev Sec Ops = Development, Security, Operation, but it is a method in which development and operation are relatively coordinated. The process is advanced with an emphasis on security from the initial stage of development.
Dev Sec Ops has gone through agile, starting with Lean Product Development, and is now what it is today.
It seems that huge IT companies such as GAFAM have adopted Dev Sec Ops and are kaizen the software once developed every day.
Unlike Agile, Dev Sec Ops deals with large-scale software development, so it is a reasonably mature development method.
Lean Product Development created a product development method based on the Toyota Production System. Still, since it is based on the production method, the finished product is different from Toyota Product Development.
Car development is, in a sense, a waterhole method.
It is a product development system led by the chief engineer (CE), mentioned many times in this blog.
CE is consistently responsible from development to sales.
Based on the CE concept built at the beginning, it is a method to proceed with the development as a project member, not only the proper designer but also the development staff of related manufacturers.
The CE concept clarifies product specifications that incorporate customer needs.
We are also considering in advance the feasibility of newly adopted technology.
Toyota's product development is the driving force for the company's survival.
If you look at the fact that customers have accepted it for a long time, you can see that this is an effective mechanism.
The satisfaction of many customers supports Toyota's product development.
Therefore, Dev Sec Ops is also a process that aims to respond to changes in customer requirements flexibly.
Joint ventures and software development in Japan seem to be conscious of protecting interests.
Since we are dealing with client companies and government offices, it is unlikely that this structure will change.