How to communicate when "identical specifications as in the home country" are not possible.
My name is Hisamori, and I have had the opportunity to be involved in many projects for companies with a global presence.
In designing stores for foreign brands, consistent specifications are often assumed in order to maintain brand consistency.
However, in Japan, due to its unique conditions, it is often impossible to achieve the same quality with the same specifications. Addressing this increases costs, but the home country cannot simply disregard costs when it comes to Japan. As a result, the person in charge in Japan is caught between the demands of the home country and the circumstances of the local market.
I myself have experienced this many times while working on store design for foreign brands for a long time. Why does this gap occur, and how can it be overcome?
When the assumption of identical specifications breaks down
The premise of globalization is "deployment based on the same established standards as in the home country." In many cases, deployment in each country is based on drawings and specifications from the home country, and it is generally assumed that costs will remain within a certain range.
However, in Japan, this premise is challenged. Expectations for meticulous finishing and a high level of spatial perfection are high, and even slight "roughness" can affect the overall impression. Furthermore, delivery conditions, construction environments, and differing regulations in each country mean that the same specifications may not always be feasible.
In store projects I've actually been involved in, there have been cases where the original specifications from the home country couldn't be used, requiring specification changes and quality assurance. As a result, costs exceeded initial estimates, and discrepancies in understanding arose between the home country and our team.
The "difference in perception" creates a dilemma.
The reason behind this difference is not a difference in rationality, but rather a "difference in perceived necessity." The reason the home country finds it difficult to accept is that they do not feel the necessity themselves.
Japanese quality cannot be conveyed through words alone. Values such as the precision of the finish and the perfection of the space cannot be fully captured by drawings and numbers alone.
In other words, the problem isn't a lack of information, but rather a lack of understanding of its necessity. You can't judge something you haven't seen. In this situation, the Japanese representative is asked to provide explanations between headquarters and the local area. This structure is creating a dilemma.
From "explanation" to "experience"
If you can't make a judgment because you haven't seen it, the quickest way to find out is to have someone actually see it for you.
There are many instances where people's perceptions change after seeing the actual site. The space and quality that are best suited to the location, which cannot be conveyed through words alone, can only be truly understood by seeing and experiencing it.
To get this understood in our home country, we need to devise ways to communicate it effectively. We will explore methods to help people "see and experience" the situation, such as sharing how things appear on the ground through videos and research materials, or having people with connections to our home country visit the site.
In this case, we were fortunate that the head of the client's Japanese subsidiary was seconded from Head Office. Having someone in a position to communicate with Head Office office actually go to the site and understand the situation on the ground made it easier to explain the local conditions. As a result, we were able to reach an agreement, implement the project with specifications that met Japanese requirements, and even get approval for the increased costs.
The quality standards demanded in Japan are based on local reasons, and these differences are often easily understood by actually seeing them.
In other words, it's a problem that can be solved if there are ways to fully share that value.
In fact, there are many cases where this approach has led to amicable resolution. By creating a shared understanding, consensus building can be advanced.
That's why it's important not to rely solely on "explanations."
Seeing is believing. When you feel that explanations alone won't be enough to get the message across, why not try communicating through "experience"?