Vol.1 No.2 2008

66/85

Interview : Hope for Synthesiology−135 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.2 (2008) we will solve it. But there’s also another kind of setting in both Type 1 and Type 2 research where the problem is not understood -- where we don’t exactly know what the problem is. We don’t have a problem; we have a ‘situation’. Let’s imagine that in mathematical research we have a number of branches of mathematics which are addressing a given situation and that maybe they are not consistent with each other. But the different researchers in the different branches of mathematics each see only part of the situation and they don’t recognize the inconsistencies in their approach. But when they talk to each other over a period of time, the nature of the problem becomes clear. There is a process that goes on that brings together the different researchers in different fields, in different branches of mathematics. They talk to each other, and over time, they discover that there is actually a problem there. They didn’t realize that there was a problem initially. They didn’t realize there was a paradox. But as they talk to each other with each one bringing a somewhat different perspective to bear, they discover that there is a problem that needs to be solved. Similarly in Type 2 Research, the situation might be that a company or the scientists or engineers within the company are in discussion with a regulatory body about setting a standard for, let’s say, a chemical or something that the company is making, for which the company needs regulatory guidance. So the engineers in the company go to the regulators and say, “we need some guidance here, we need you to tell us what we can do and what we can’t do”. And the regulator starts to look at the chemical that the company is developing, and he might think, “that chemical is actually quite similar to another chemical that somebody else is developing. And are they similar enough that we should be thinking of them in the same way or in different ways? And a conversation starts, bringing in the other company. And maybe over time, as the companies and the regulator start discussing the situation, they see the possibility of developing a ranking scheme for different chemicals or for ranking the risks from different chemicals. But when they started talking about this, they didn’t see that possibility. So this is a very different kind of situation. This second type of situation can apply in both Type 1 and Type 2 Research. Its characteristic feature is that the problem isn’t well-defined, and maybe isn’t even defined at all at the beginning. And the distinction that the book makes between analytical and interpretive is that the interpretive process is what happens when you move from not understanding the problem at all to having a clear picture of what the problem is. And you encounter these situations in both Type 1 and Type 2 Researches. In both cases you want to move from a situation where the problem isn’t well-defined to a situation where the problem is understood. That is the interpretive process. And then once the problem is understood, then you use analytical methods to solve it. And what the book argues is that in innovative organizations it is important to have both processes. It’s important to have the interpretive process and it’s important to know how to manage it, because it involves a very different kind of management from the management of the analytical process. And it’s important not to cut the interpretive process short, not to shut it down too quickly. And so to go back to this situation here, I think the distinction that’s made here applies to both Type 2 and Type 1 Basic Researches. We would argue that you need to have both of these things going on, in both cases. So that’s why, as I said at the beginning, it’s not so obvious how this translates. I think that this distinction difference of analytical from interpretive is relevant in both Type 1 and Type 2 Basic Research. And it’s also relevant, I would say, in product realization, because there too you need both interpretive and analytical processes. (Kobayashi)I have a question. You have shown a diagram of Bohr type, Pasteur type and Edison type for the nature of the research. Does this correspond to some process?(Lester)I think it does. I think it is very closely related to what you are talking about. I think Pasteur is really more Type 2 and Bohr is Type 1. (Kobayashi)Some people think that in Type 1 the analytical method is more usual than interpretive. Is that so?(Lester)No, I think both play a role in each case. This is an important point.(Kobayashi)So even in Type 2, we have analytical method and interpretive method. (Lester)Yes. But I think the difference is, in the interpretive process in Type 2, you have to bring –we talk about this as being a conversation. The interpretive process is like a conversation. It may not exactly be a conversation, but it’s like a conversation. And the difference is that in Type 1 Basic Research, the conversation is between—the question is who Interviewer: Naoto Kobayashi (63)−

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です