Vol.1 No.2 2008

43/85

Research paper : Introduction to service engineering (H. Yoshikawa)−112 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) AuthorHiroyuki YoshikawaStudied design, manufacturing and maintenance at Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo. In the design study, pioneered “general design theory” in which the design process is described topologically, and developed the basis of intelligent CAD. In manufacturing, pointed out the presence of common basic disciplines for manufacturing industry, proposed “International Intelligent Manufacturing System (IMS),” and lead the movement for 10 years. In maintenance, defined the general structure of maintenance and created a prototype for the maintenance robot MOOTY. Joined the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) in 2001. As president, established outline of the research institute to undertake Full Research to shift emphasis to sustainable industry based on 10 Rules of Research Administration. Graduated from Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo in 1956. Professor, The University of Tokyo; President, The University of Tokyo; President, The Open University of Japan; Chairman, Science Council of Japan; Chairman, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; Chairman, College International pour la Recherche en Productique (CIRP); and Chairman, International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). Currently, President, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST).Discussion with reviewers1 Compatibility of the paper with SynthesiologyQuestion (Motoyuki Akamatsu)This paper was submitted as a paper on Synthesiology , but I think it will be better to mention the positioning of this paper within “synthesiology”. I think the study of the service engineering is “synthesiology” in two aspects. One is the service itself is synthesiological; the other is that the service engineering is synthesiological because an academic system must be created by integrating related disciplines. If there is a description that this paper is synthesiology in the beginning of the paper, I think the positioning of the paper will be clearer.Answer (Hiroyuki Yoshikawa)Type 2 Basic Research is a study to extract general inference, knowledge, and methods that underlie the activities to synthesize meaningful artifacts by integrating available knowledge, and I believe a Synthesiology paper is to present this process comprehensively. Therefore, it is necessary to consider its position as an academic journal for paper written by “person who makes (or synthesizes) theory (or an artifact).”Colossal scientific knowledge system is composed of partial systems that are called disciplines. Science includes physics, chemistry, and biology each of which forms a closed and consistent system within its own discipline, which are also mutually consistent. Of course, each discipline includes phenomena that cannot be explained by other disciplines, harbors issues that cannot be explained within its discipline, and solution to such issue is the motivation to do research. Type 1 Basic Research conducted from this motivation is the normal science as described by Thomas Kuhn.What is the theoretical research that is not so? Kuhn called research that is not normal science “research that causes paradigm shift” and positioned it as the most important undertaking in the history of science. There is also research that is not research within discipline like normal science, and although not at history-of-science level, it may spin off theory that offer conclusion that has a direct impact of the real world. It also exists more frequently, at wider range, and on daily basis than paradigm shift study. Since theory that has effect on real world is a kind of meaningful artifact, the research to create such theory is synthesiological study. Moreover, such study has common theoretical structure as study that causes a paradigm shift. Of course, in the history of science, a research that causes a paradigm shift produces a theory that solves the problem that becomes publicly known an inconsistency of that age. On the other hand, the theoretical research of daily issues deals with issues that are interest of the age but has no common basis for consideration, and its motivation is the expectation to create a theory to build such basis. It is different, but isomorphic.If research to create theory is explicitly stated and considered as a paradigm shift research, there arises question of whether it is necessary for the new journal Synthesiology to take up synthesiological research to create the similar theory on mundane level. However, it is necessary to recall the following fact. Taking the example of Newton’s Principia that influenced the history of science, Newton had a magnificent originality that generated disciplines, but he offered no explanation for “synthesis” of the central three laws (absolute coordinates, acceleration, and action-reaction). In Principia, after describing the laws, he simply states, “The above was a description of principles that were recognized by mathematicians and verified by abundant experiments” (Sir Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mahtematica, translated into Japanese by S. Nakano, Kodansha, 977, p. 38). This is followed by 600 pages (in Japanese version) of theorems derived from the laws. This became a major theme of the abduction study by C.S. Peirce, but it was unknown how Newton could “synthesize” such wonderful and useful laws.Although the importance of the intellectual “synthesis” of creating theory is explicitly stated, neither theoreticians nor science historians could explain the mechanisms. Therefore, it is the work of researchers at AIST who are attempting to extract Type 2 Basic Research, to clarify the secret of theoretical synthesis, and I believe Synthesiology is the place where this should be attempted.Of course, there are many additional matters that must be considered. There are conditions that must be met regardless of whether it is theory or not, as follows.(1) Is the goal necessary and appropriate? It is now understood that service theory is necessary.(2) What about the trends of research to be disciplinal? We should actively remove them.(3) Is the explanation for knowledge integration sufficient? We made effort.(4) How about the compatibility of explanation in theory? This is the main objective of this paper.As a theory, the main subject is basically to define the concepts and to create relationships in the synthetic process. Since the theoretical basis of this paper is set as a hypothesis building, the paper itself is an abduction. Therefore, the propositions must be verified. The main issue is whether there is a format for verification,, and to enable this, variables (concepts) are to be employed by rejecting concepts that are thought non-measurable.[12]23(2008).J. Spohrer, P. P. Maglio and D. Gruhl: Steps toward a science of service systems, IEEE Computer, 40(1), 71-77(2007).Received original manuscript January 11, 2008Revisions received March 16, 2008Accepted March 16, 2008(40)−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です