Today, I want to reflect on the idea of “both sides having legitimate concerns” in service delivery, sparked by Sugoroku Hut’s recent mobile battery ban.

Sugoroku Hut sits at the saddle between Mount Sugoroku and Mount Momisawa, serving as a popular base for climbers heading toward Mount Kuro-Goro or Kumo-no-Daira. Recently, the hut announced on its website a policy that has generated significant response among mountaineers:

“Due to the high risk of explosion and fire from mobile batteries, the four huts in the Sugoroku Hut Group will prohibit bringing mobile batteries inside. Given the special environment where firefighting by fire departments is extremely difficult, we ask for your understanding and cooperation.”

Why Did This Generate Such a Response?

The reason is simple. The Nagano Prefectural Police and other authorities strongly recommend carrying mobile batteries to avoid battery depletion emergencies in mountain areas (for GPS, map apps, emergency calls, etc.). Yet the hut banned them for safety reasons — creating a clash between “required for safety” and “banned for safety.” Both positions claim the moral high ground.

What Was Missing?

The hut likely had genuine concerns about explosion risks and the difficulty of firefighting. Meanwhile, climbers and police had equally genuine concerns about preventing mountain accidents. Both sides wanted to protect “safety.”

What was needed was sufficient communication with stakeholders before the announcement to explore how both concerns could be addressed together. If they had proposed alternatives — such as asking climbers to bring waterproof bags and store batteries in a designated outdoor area — the response might have been very different.

Looking Inward

Reading about this, I felt a jolt of recognition. As a mountaineer, I think “going into the mountains without a mobile battery is unthinkable.” Yet as a service provider, I deeply understand the judgment that “in an environment where firefighting is impossible, a single fire could be catastrophic.” Before criticizing Sugoroku Hut, I had to ask: are we being one-sided in our own communication?

For example, we currently operate under a policy of “allowing up to 2 business days to respond to email inquiries from service users.” As our user base has grown, responding immediately to every question with our limited resources became unsustainable and placed excessive burden on our support staff. On the other hand, from a user’s perspective, it would obviously be more helpful to receive immediate responses regardless of the issue’s urgency.

Here too, “both sides have legitimate concerns.” We address this by:

• Clarifying which issues receive immediate response (e.g., critical bugs that prevent service use)
• Clarifying which issues may take up to 2 business days (e.g., non-urgent questions covered in our manual)
• Regularly reminding users about our AI chatbot and manual resources

We strive to communicate our reasoning while making our response criteria explicit.

Closing Thoughts

The Sugoroku Hut case exemplifies a problem where both the service provider and recipient have legitimate concerns. This can happen not just in mountain huts, but in any service context. Are we being one-sided? Are we exploring ways to address both concerns? I raised this topic hoping it might prompt such self-reflection — for us and for others.

Masaki “Mark” Iino
Founder & CEO
SOPHOLA, Inc