Lightworks Releases Vendor-Neutral, Free Selection Guide to Prevent Superficial Security Training and Hidden Operational Burdens

Lightworks Co., Ltd. (headquartered in Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo; President: Natsuro Eguchi; hereinafter 'Lightworks'), developer and provider of CAREERSHIP—the e-learning platform (LMS) ranked No.1 in sales for three consecutive years (2023, 2024, 2025 forecast)*1—and e-learning content, has released a free 'Guide to Selecting Information Security Training Services (Vendor-Neutral Edition with Selection Checklist)' for companies considering reviewing or introducing information security training. The guide offers an objective perspective without recommending any specific service.

In anticipation of the 'Security Measures Evaluation System for Supply Chain Strengthening,' which the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) aims to implement by the end of FY2026, the guide provides practical evaluation criteria to revitalize often-formalistic internal training into truly effective programs.

*Source: Deloitte Tohmatsu Mic Economic Research Institute, 'Corporate OVP/e-Learning Platform Solution Market Trends 2025 Edition' (November 2025) https://mic-r.co.jp/mr/03630/

Download URL: https://www.lightworks.co.jp/material/learninghub-download

Background: The Deep Gap Between 'Conducting' and 'Effective' Security Training

While many companies currently implement security training, a survey by the Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA)*2 identifies key challenges: 'lack of personnel (38.6%)', 'lack of knowledgeable employees (33.3%)', and 'low employee awareness (31.9%)'.

These are all areas that should be addressed through training, yet many responsible personnel report that training has become 'superficial and unable to respond to the latest threats.'

Furthermore, according to a report by the National Police Agency*3, the proportion of organizations in Japan requiring over 10 million yen for investigation and recovery from ransomware attacks has increased to 59%. With METI's new evaluation system on the horizon, mid-sized and large enterprises playing critical roles in supply chains face an urgent need to revamp their training systems—'something that should start now, counting backward from this autumn.'

The Paradox of Selection Criteria: Three Pitfalls When Comparing Vendors via Demos and Feature Lists

Based on six months of analysis of over 20 sales negotiations and material reviews, this guide reveals 'three pitfalls' hidden in traditional selection methods.

Misconception: 'We can operate it ourselves' (Hidden monthly workload of 10–15 hours) Even with a user-friendly admin interface, manual tasks such as scheduling deliveries and sending reminders to non-participants often impose an excessive monthly burden of 10–15 hours on part-time training coordinators. What matters during selection is not 'what the system can do,' but 'what we don’t have to do ourselves.'

The trap of 'feature checklist tables' While features like AI risk scoring and phishing reporting may make a service appear superior, many companies end up 'paying for unused features' due to unprepared internal structures.

Reversal of total cost due to low monthly unit pricing When comparing only surface-level 'monthly price per user,' the 'TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)'—including internal operational labor—can paradoxically make the cheaper option more expensive in the long run.

Three Industry-Wide 'Blind Spots' and Five Essential Questions to Avoid Regret

The guide further identifies 'three blind spots' inherent in traditional email-centric training:

Blind Spot 1: Inadequate defenses against emerging attack channels beyond email, such as 'QR code phishing' that bypasses email filters and 'voice phishing (voice spoofing)' using AI.

Blind Spot 2: A disconnect between knowledge-based tests and the actual themes of experiential training.

Blind Spot 3: Content updated only once or twice a year, failing to keep pace with rapidly evolving threats.

Based on these insights, the guide fully includes 'five essential questions to confirm before vendor demos,' as well as ready-to-use materials for internal presentations and approvals: 'Before/After Operational Workload Comparison Table,' 'Data Set for Business Proposals,' and 'Pre-Demo and Pre-Approval Checklist (13 items total).'

It condenses know-how for building a system that enables coordinators to keep monthly operational workload under five hours while generating reports responsive to audits and new regulations.

Guide Structure (18 pages total)

Chapter 1: Why Comparing After Demos Leads to Failure

Chapter 2: Three Pitfalls to Know Before Regretting Your Selection

Chapter 3: Three Common Blind Spots Often Overlooked Across All Services

Chapter 4: Five Essential Questions to Confirm Before Demos to Avoid Selection Regret

Chapter 5: The Hidden 10–15 Hour Monthly Workload Missing from Comparison Tables

Appendix A: Selection Checklist (Pre-Demo and Pre-Approval Versions)

Appendix B: Data Set for Business Proposals (with official source citations)

Appendix C: Survey Overview

*2 IPA, 'Survey Report on the Current State of Information Security Measures among SECURITY ACTION Declaration Companies in FY2023' https://www.ipa.go.jp/security/reports/sme/sa-survey2023.html

*3 National Police Agency Cybercrime Investigation Bureau, 'Cyber Threat Landscape in the First Half of Reiwa 7'

https://www.npa.go.jp/publications/statistics/cybersecurity/data/R7kami/R07_kami_cyber_jyosei.pdf