The other day, I read an article in the newspaper about the introduction of proprietary information systems by local governments. This is the worst case scenario in terms of effective use of taxpayers' money, and the best case scenario for system development companies. They can sell similar systems to each municipality individually and make huge sums of money on a regular basis in the name of operational support. Over the years, local governments become dependent on a particular system development company, making it difficult for them to use the system without its support, and they find themselves in a situation where they are rolled in the hands of the system development company. Like a poor addict who continues to depend on a drug dealer and loses his assets.
 
I hope that as soon as possible, a common system that has been built by the central government can be shared by many municipalities and stop spending money like water that keeps leaking out of a bucket. Not a good story for the system development companies, though... When one municipality experienced a problem related to the use of my number due to a system defect, they corrected the defect for that municipality's system, but neglected to deal with other municipalities using similar systems, which caused similar problems in other municipalities. Just as many products made on an iffy production line are of equally iffy quality. If the systems are shared, we can say goodbye to such unfortunate tragedies.
 
As mentioned above, it is dangerous to depend on a limited number of specific people and things. As a strategy to take advantage of such a matter, I once read a book that describes a slightly frightening scenario in which you win if you make the company dependent on you in order to remain an essential person in the company. The operations that are indispensable to the company will not be able to run without a dedicated person in charge, so-called " personalization of operations," which is a dangerous situation for the company. I think we should create an atmosphere in the organization where people who can communicate their skills to others as well as possible are respected, and those who can't are despised.
 
As the birthrate declines and the population ages, there is concern that the retirement of many talented elderly people will lead to the loss of skilled skills that are difficult to pass on to the next generation because they are often sensory in nature and difficult to express in words. There are high expectations for attempts to utilize AI to successfully pass on such skills to the younger generation. On a similar story, I used to think that in order to become a full-fledged sushi chef, it is necessary to learn (steal) skills little by little over a number of years under the tutelage of an overbearing master. However, the other day, a TV program introduced a booming sushi restaurant run by a sushi chef who learned from youtube videos for a short period of time. It made me think that dependence on others is effective, and the opposite is also effective.
 
Lately, especially in the IT industry, there has been a growing tendency not to place too much value on being employed by a company. It seems to me that it is becoming more and more natural for people to leave the company if they feel that they are being passed over lightly, even though they have expressed an unyielding point of view. Not so long ago, I would have hesitated to express my opinions too much to a company because of the risk of losing my place in the company. I don't want to be dependent on anything as long as possible. If you say "You need me, don't you? Are you okay alone?" I want to respond, "Oh, I have no choice." I want to be a person who does not cling to important people, things, or objects too much in the event of their sudden loss.
 
Silence is Complicity
A term popularized by the assault and death of a black man by a white police officer.