Hall Chadwick Insights

  1. Hall Chadwick Insights

Progress Completed, Yet Unable to Move Forward

When Taiwan–Japan collaborations stall, it is often difficult to pinpoint which step has gone wrong. Required documents have already been submitted, processes are proceeding according to the original plan, and both sides appear to be pushing their work forward. Yet at a certain stage, discussions come to a halt and the next step cannot be initiated. Completed work is not being rejected, nor is there explicit opposition to the current approach, but there is no clear agreement on which assumptions should be used to proceed.

Such situations tend to arise after the collaboration has been underway for some time. In the early stages, discussions usually focus on direction, conditions, and division of responsibilities, and once both sides agree to move into execution, progress follows naturally. As the collaboration begins to involve concrete responsibilities, downstream impact, or alignment with institutional frameworks, the criteria for judgment change. At this point, the issue is no longer whether a specific task has been completed, but whether the approach can be treated as an established judgment and used directly as the premise for the next phase of work.

As a result, discussions shift toward a more specific question: can this approach be used to initiate the next process? If the answer remains unclear, the matter can only be recorded, without being translated into subsequent action. While work may appear to continue on the surface, the lack of confirmed judgment causes progress to remain stationary, leaving the collaboration in a state where it cannot be carried forward.

How Japanese Companies Assess Whether a Statement “Counts”

In Japanese corporate decision-making, whether a statement is considered valid is closely tied to the position from which it is made. Reasonableness of content alone does not guarantee adoption; what matters is whether the speaker occupies a position capable of bearing the consequences. This position is not necessarily that of the top executive, nor is it always explicitly defined by title, but is linked to the organization’s internal allocation of responsibility.

This difference often causes confusion for Taiwanese companies. Even after the same points have been explained multiple times and all requested materials have been provided, the absence of a clear response from the Japanese side is easily interpreted as distrust or hesitation. In practice, the situation is usually simpler: the current explanation has not yet been placed within a position that can take responsibility for the judgment, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for subsequent decisions.

Why Discussions Ultimately Return to Accountants

In practice, accountants are rarely brought into Taiwan–Japan collaborations at the outset, nor after a matter has completely failed. More often, they are involved when discussions repeatedly stall at the same point. Even after several rounds of supplemental materials and extensive explanations, both sides remain unable to determine whether the proposed approach can serve as the basis for the next step. At this stage, what is needed is no longer additional information, but someone capable of making a judgment over the entire structure.
  • The first thing accountants do in this situation is clarify what kind of issue is actually being discussed. Many discussions circulate because operational decisions, tax considerations, accounting treatment, and management-level judgments are addressed simultaneously. Accountants separate these layers, identifying which elements are operational choices, which involve institutional alignment, and which may affect future accounting consistency. Only when the issue is placed back at the appropriate level can the Japanese side assess whether it is worth defining at that point.
     
  • The second practical role is to build an explanation that can be traced over time. Accountants organize fragmented decision backgrounds, accounting logic, and institutional rationale into a coherent line of reasoning, so that the approach remains defensible when reviewed one or three years later. Without this step, any judgment remains provisional and is difficult to formally carry forward.
     
  • The third role is to transform an individual judgment into a set of principles that can be applied consistently. In many stalled Taiwan–Japan collaborations, the Japanese side is concerned about whether a decision constitutes an exception. By clearly defining the scope of application and turning a one-off action into a bounded principle, accountants reduce concerns over future loss of control.
     
  • The fourth critical role is to clarify responsibility. Many judgments fail to be confirmed not because they are unreasonable, but because no one is clearly accountable for the consequences. When accountants are involved, they explicitly identify where the treatment sits within accounting and institutional frameworks, and what basis can be used if questions arise in the future. Once responsibility is placed in a clearly identifiable position, judgment can move forward.

It is precisely because of these concrete functions that discussions begin to change once accountants become involved. From a practical perspective, the role of accountants in Taiwan–Japan collaborations is closer to reshaping a disordered discussion into a form that institutional frameworks can understand.

The Gap Between Progress and Judgment

Looking back at stalled Taiwan–Japan collaborations, the issue is rarely a matter of wrong direction, nor does it often lie in the system itself. In most cases, the problem arises after a phase of progress has been completed, but that completion has not been clearly confirmed. Work has moved forward to a certain point, yet no one can state whether that phase has truly come to a close. In this state, the collaboration appears to continue operating, while in reality it remains in the same place. Materials continue to be supplemented and explanations are repeated, but discussion fails to translate into the next course of action. The key issue is not whether information is sufficient, but whether judgment has been formally retained.

This is why discussions ultimately return to the question of “who makes this call.” What is required is not a new conclusion, but someone to draw a boundary around existing judgments, clarifying which parts have been established and which can be carried forward. Once this confirmation is in place, the collaboration can move beyond repetitive verification and enter the next phase of practical execution. From this perspective, the role of accountants in Taiwan–Japan collaborations goes beyond providing professional advice; at critical junctures, it allows progress to become confirmable for the first time. Once that confirmation is completed, the collaboration may not suddenly accelerate, but it can be certain that this phase has been concluded.
Back