The Fatal Reason Why DX Fails in Labor and Social Security Attorney Offices Where the Principal Is Proficient in AI

Hello, I am
Yuki Fukiage, Representative of Lean Stack Inc..

DX support for labor and social security attorney offices "Yohakuru"
https://www.yohakuru.com/

■ Track record of AI/DX implementation in labor and social security attorney offices
Shinka Labor and Social Security Attorney Corporation: 80% reduction in subsidy check tasks, over 50% reduction in document creation and procedural tasks
Asterisk Labor and Social Security Attorney Office: 95% reduction in work rules tasks
Four Season Labor and Social Security Attorney Corporation: 80% reduction in payroll calculation tasks

Click here for free consultations and demos!
↓
https://www.yohakuru.com/#contact

Introduction

In this article, I will write about a somewhat paradoxical theme.

"Why DX somehow fails to progress in labor and social security attorney offices where the principal is proficient in AI"—this is a somewhat serious topic.

Compared to six months ago, the way labor and social security attorneys approach AI has clearly changed.

They are still in the minority.
However, the number of attorneys who are seriously trying to master AI in their own offices is definitely increasing.

I truly feel this firsthand while working in the field.
That in itself is a wonderful thing.

However, there is a catch.

In offices where the principal has become knowledgeable about AI and can use it effectively, there are many cases where progress stops right there.

Why does DX stop progressing in the offices of the attorneys who are working the hardest on AI?

In this article, I will write about the reason for this and how to break out of it.
This is information that will definitely be useful even for attorneys who have not yet touched AI.

It is not wrong for the leader to lead the way

First, there is something I want to make clear.

It is very important for the principal or the representative attorney to try using AI themselves first.

In offices where the leader keeps their distance because they "don't really understand it," AI will never progress.

Therefore, the attorney themselves must get hands-on and grasp what can be done with AI.
This attitude is truly correct.

In fact, what has changed since six months ago is precisely because the number of "attorneys who try it themselves" has increased.

However, the problem lies
beyond that point.

The limitations of a structure where the principal alone masters general-purpose AI

Many principals who start using AI begin with general-purpose AI like ChatGPT.
Nowadays, many might also be using Claude.

This is where the first wall appears.

General-purpose AI like ChatGPT or Claude is certainly smart, but it knows absolutely nothing about your office's circumstances.

The rules for each client, the habits of past judgments, and the values the office has cherished.

Unless this 'office mindset' is loaded into it, it often fails to function effectively as knowledge.

Of course, if you are an AI professional yourself and are also well-versed in acting as a proxy for company presidents, you can go quite far on your own.

But here comes the second,
more deep-seated wall.

The reality that there is almost no one in the office with the literacy to handle AI.is the issue.

In the end, only the representative principal can build the AI or tweak the settings.

Even if you create knowledge and share it with employees saying 'please use this,' the employees cannot adjust it themselves.
If something comes up, the principal ends up having to intervene every single time.

—The question is, is this really DX?
At the very least, I think the answer is NO.

The 'structure dependent on the principal' has not changed at all

Look at it calmly.
Until now, both judgment and processing were concentrated on the principal.

As a result of introducing AI, the situation has now become one where 'only the principal can operate the AI.'

The dependency has simply shifted from 'the principal's manual labor' to 'the principal's AI operation,' and I believe the structure where everything falls on the principal has not changed at all.

In fact, there are even offices where the principal's burden has increased because they have added a new tool called AI.

This is the exact opposite of the purpose of DX.

DX is originally meant to reduce the burden on the principal and staff and raise the overall productivity of the office.

And yet, if AI is concentrated solely on the director,
that is nothing more than 'advanced personalization'.

And this is the most dangerous 'swamp' of all.

This is the point I most want to convey today.

When the director hoards AI,
the director themselves becomes 'locked' by the AI.

What does this mean?

Because no one else in the office can handle AI, the director cannot step away from the front lines.
They are constantly tied to a state where 'nothing works unless I do it myself'.

Things that should be done as a business owner
—developing new clients, creating new services, and taking steps to increase sales

The room to focus on these tasks that contribute significantly to sales growth is being steadily whittled away.

Even though you introduced AI,
the director's options,
and the room for the office to expand,

are actually narrowing.
This is putting the cart before the horse.

To be honest, if you are going to stop here, it is sometimes better not to start at all.

'AI that only the director can use' looks like progress, but
it is actually a swamp that traps the director.

You must never get stuck in this swamp.

True DX only happens from the bottom up.

So, what should you do?

The answer is raising the floor.
It is bottom-up.

Create a state where staff within the company can use AI autonomously.

I am not saying they need to become engineers.
But at the very least, they should reach a level of 'quasi-engineer' where front-line staff can touch, adjust, and incorporate AI into their work themselves.

Once you reach this point, you have undoubtedly achieved the goal of DX.

Because,what the director was holding onto alone
turns into organizational power.

Even if the director doesn't intervene in every little thing, the front lines will run the AI themselves.

Only then will the principal be freed from being locked in.

You will be able to step away from daily operations and dedicate time to management. You can move toward strategies to increase sales and take on new challenges.

This is the true improvement in productivity for the entire labor and social security attorney office, and
it is the ultimate goal of DX as I see it.

Don't let the leader's first step end in personalization

I will say it again.
It is important for the leader to try it out themselves first.

However, you must not stop at that first step by keeping it in a state where 'only the principal can use it.'

If it becomes personalized there, the principal will eventually become the bottleneck again, and you will fall back into the swamp.

What is important is whether the principal can effectively spread what they have grasped
throughout the office.

I believe this will be the most important point that determines the success or failure of AI utilization from here on out.

That said, it is honestly impossible for the principal to spread it alone

However, as a practical matter.

For a principal who is already busy with daily operations to also lead the charge in spreading AI throughout the office, doing it all alone.
This is quite impossible.

That is why a service that accompanies you in that 'spreading' part becomes necessary.

Our company's Yohakuru
is doing exactly that.

We take the office's knowledge—the rules for each client, the habits of judgment, and the values—and load it all into the AI. Since there are few others doing this, I believe it is our strength.

However, I don't want you to misunderstand,
what I really want to say is not about tools.

There is almost no benefit to AI that only the principal can use.

Cultivating people who can use it within the company from the bottom up.
The essence is whether you can face this.

The last thing I want to ask about is 'organizational structure'

And one more thing.

When you seriously consider a bottom-up approach, there is an unavoidable point of discussion.

That is the fact that the principal should, in the first place, step away from those operational tasks.

Utilizing AI is not simply about introducing new tools.

It is about re-evaluating the organizational structure itself: 'who does what, and to what extent'.

The principal must step away from on-site processing to spend time on management and building relationships with clients, which is what they should be doing.

To achieve this, the on-site operations must be run by staff who have grown alongside AI.

Thinking about this type of organizational structure in tandem with AI utilization.
I believe this will become a very important item for offices moving forward.

Summary

Let me summarize this at the end.

Compared to six months ago, the number of principals who are seriously engaging with AI has definitely increased.
This attitude of the leader running at the front is truly correct.

However, ironically, it is a fact that offices where the principal is highly skilled at using AI are often the ones that get stuck there.

When AI is concentrated solely on the principal, it becomes nothing more than 'advanced individual dependency,' and the principal themselves becomes locked in by the AI.
The room to maneuver in management and the options for the office to expand actually become narrower.

This is counterproductive, and if you are going to stop here, it would be better not to have started at all.

To escape this trap, there is no other way but a bottom-up approach where in-house staff can use AI autonomously.

And beyond that, there is the unavoidable point of discussion where the principal must step away from on-site tasks and re-evaluate the organizational structure itself.

AI utilization is not a story about introducing smart tools, but
a story about how to reshape the organization that is your office.

From the offices that realize this,
AI will transform from a 'swamp that binds the principal' into the 'strength of the entire office.'

That is what I think.

Thank you for reading until the end today as well.

'I have become able to use AI, but there is no sign of it spreading within the company.'
'In the end, I am the one tinkering with AI every time; is this really DX?'
'I want to see a demo of office knowledge loaded into AI so that the staff themselves can use it!'

If you are interested, please feel free to consult with us below.

We offer free demonstrations and show you actual examples of increased efficiency.
Please request a free consultation here!
↓
https://www.yohakuru.com/#contact

See you in the next article.