DX is fundamentally an initiative to use digital technologies to change the way operations and businesses are run, thereby strengthening competitiveness. IPA has also stated that companies need to accelerate DX in order to maintain and enhance their competitiveness.

At the operational level, however, DX is sometimes understood as simply introducing IT tools or digitizing existing processes. As a result, the means can easily become the goal, narrowing the scope of transformation.

For example, even if application processes are digitized, improvements can easily remain limited to local optimization if approval routes are still complex or collected data is not used across departments. To overcome these barriers, companies need to review not just individual operations but the overall systems that make up the organization.

SX (System Transformation) is an approach that treats corporate challenges not as problems within a single function or system, but as part of a broader interconnected structure spanning strategy, organization, people, business processes, governance, culture, IT, and more—and drives transformation by addressing their root causes.

In this context, “system” does not refer only to IT systems. It means the overall mechanisms that support business activity, including the flow of management decisions, the division of roles across departments, operational rules on the front line, and processes for sharing information.

In other words, SX is an approach that looks beyond which tool to introduce and digs deeper into why a problem is occurring and which relationships need to change in order to sustain improvement.

DX and SX are not opposing concepts. Rather, it is helpful to understand SX as a framework that supports DX and makes it more effective in practice.

DX focuses on transformation itself through the use of digital technologies. SX, on the other hand, takes the view that a company’s challenges should be understood as part of an overall structure, the root causes preventing transformation should be identified, and digital technologies should be used where necessary.

For example, if a sales department introduces SFA but employees do not consistently enter data, the cause may not be limited to the usability of the tool. Multiple factors may be involved, including the evaluation system, meeting structures, the perceived burden on frontline teams, and managers' approach to operations. SX is characterized by considering measures while looking at how these elements are connected.

The reason corporate transformation often stalls is not a lack of technology, but underlying structural issues. When responsibilities are unclear, frontline teams and management are not aligned, or short-term results take priority over fundamental improvement, DX initiatives are unlikely to take root.

In many companies, even when a specific problem is addressed directly, the same issue can reappear elsewhere. This happens because eliminating only the visible symptoms does not change the underlying structure behind them.

SX is effective in reducing this pattern of recurring problems. Rather than assuming there is a single cause, it examines the full set of related mechanisms, making it easier to develop more realistic improvement measures.

For example, when a manufacturer renews its production management system, simply replacing it with a new system is not enough. Overall improvement becomes possible only when the company also reviews data-entry workloads on the shop floor, information sharing between factories and headquarters, inventory standards, management indicators, and maintenance structures.

In a sales organization, SFA and CRM are more likely to deliver results when customer information is centrally managed and supporting processes are clearly defined, including opportunity stages, meeting metrics, reporting frequency, and post-sale handoff workflows.

In back-office operations, companies can go beyond digitizing expense reimbursements and contract approvals by reviewing application rules, authority settings, audit trail management, and communication with related departments. This makes it easier to reduce manual data entry while strengthening controls.

First, it helps prevent efforts from stopping at isolated, local optimizations. By examining the structural background behind the issues, companies are more likely to achieve continuous improvement than with one-off tool implementations.

Second, it becomes easier to embed changes in day-to-day operations. By considering operational rules, role allocation, and staffing factors, organizations can reduce confusion after implementation.

Third, it makes investment decisions more accurate. By identifying the true bottlenecks before moving ahead with systemization, companies can set priorities more effectively.

Because SX covers a broad scope, trying to transform the entire company across all areas at once can make it harder to take action. It is important to start by narrowing the target area and examining it in the context of actual business challenges.

However, if companies focus too heavily on overall optimization and overlook frontline workloads and operational realities, the initiative may remain only an ideal. It is important to listen carefully to frontline teams and proceed through small-scale validation.

Because SX can be difficult to communicate internally if it remains an abstract concept, it is important to explain it in concrete terms: which issues will be changed, how they will be changed, and whose work will become easier as a result.

SMILE can provide step-by-step support, from organizing business challenges and considering systemization through to development and operations.

The concept of SX is valuable, but applying it in real-world operations requires both business process knowledge and systems expertise. It is important to proceed in a practical way, from organizing current workflows and prioritizing issues to defining the necessary data, considering screen designs, and establishing an integration policy with existing systems.

This approach is especially suitable for companies that want to make improvements while minimizing the impact on existing operations: start small, assess the results, and expand gradually.

SX (System Transformation) is an approach that views corporate challenges not as issues with individual systems or tools, but as part of an interconnected structure linking strategy, organization, people, operations, culture, and IT.

For companies that struggle to achieve results from DX, the cause may lie not in the technology itself but in the structures that hinder transformation. In such cases, adopting an SX perspective makes it easier to identify improvement measures that better reflect the company’s actual situation.

SMILE supports phased implementation, from clarifying business challenges and evaluating systemization to development and operations. Companies considering DX or the use of AI are encouraged to start with small-scale business improvements.