Introduction

Part 5 clarified that citizen development is a “draft” meant to hand work to professionals. Why, then, does its role become distorted and mass-produce debt?

The root cause is not technical. It lies in misaligned vantage points between executives, frontline teams, IT, and middle management.

Context: Japanese corporations typically have a thick layer of section and department managers sandwiched between executives and frontline staff. These middle managers are evaluated on quarterly or even monthly targets, which pushes them to favor visible short-term gains—often at odds with IT’s long-term risk warnings. That cultural pattern magnifies the gap discussed here.

The full series

Four vantage points, four time horizons

Executives: supposed guardians of the long term

Executives should be the ones sketching what the organization looks like ten or even one hundred years ahead. In reality, pressures from shareholders and competitors bind them to quarterly outcomes. They succumb to the allure of RPA or citizen development—tools that promise immediate, visible results—and prioritize rollout over governance.

Frontline teams: if it works today, it is right

Frontline teams are consumed by day-to-day demands. If a tool solves tomorrow’s workload, that is enough. Long-term stewardship rarely enters the conversation. If a no-code workflow works tomorrow, it must be “right.”

IT departments: speaking for the long term yet unable to keep pace

Paradoxically, the group that actually talks about long-term risk is often IT, not the boardroom. IT warns about security, architecture, and sustainable operations.

But IT has its own weakness: chronic capacity shortages and skill gaps. It can voice long-term concerns but lacks the bandwidth to implement quick fixes, leading others to dismiss it as obstructionist.

Middle management: from mediators to accelerators of risk

Middle managers should balance executive mandates and frontline realities. Instead, evaluation metrics tether them to short-term achievements, so they end up amplifying the rush for quick wins rather than coordinating with IT. This layer’s slide from “squeezed victim” to “risk multiplier” is especially dangerous.

How misalignment breeds structural failure

  • Executives find comfort in “working demos” and forget the long term.
  • Frontline teams embrace whatever keeps the lights on.
  • IT warns that “this path collapses later,” yet lacks the capacity to intervene.
  • Middle managers prioritize this quarter’s numbers and abandon mediation.

Together they propel citizen development from brief brilliance to rapidly accruing debt. Kami Excel’s rise and fall was less about spreadsheets than about this structural misalignment.

Governance equals aligning vantage points

What we need is not merely “technical rules” or “tool selection.” Governance is the art of aligning these disparate time horizons.

  • Executives require metrics showing both short-term gains and long-term safeguards.
  • Frontline teams need rules that preserve speed without dismantling guardrails.
  • IT must provide not only warnings but actionable paths to implementation.
  • Middle managers must resist the lure of short-term praise and recommit to coordination.

Citizen development is a draft. Drafts only shine when a system exists to hand them to professionals. Aligning vantage points—governance—is what guarantees that handoff.

Closing thoughts

The future of citizen development depends less on technology than on decision structures. If misalignment persists, we will relive the Kami Excel saga. If we align perspectives and sustain the draft-to-clean-copy pipeline, citizen development can become a weapon for the future.

Next (final): Legacy Will Keep Being Born—Tame It Anyway: A Future Vision for Citizen Development (Part 7 of 7)