Vol.1 No.3 2009

34/69

Research paper : Development of flexible-printable device processing technology (T. Kamata et al.)−185 Synthesiology - English edition Vol.1 No.3 (2009) (31)−Engineering Sciences, Kyushu University in March 1995. Joined the National Institute of Materials and Chemical Research, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology (current AIST) in April 1995. Has worked on research for light-emitting devices such as organic EL and mechanoluminescence. Worked mainly on Type 1 Basic Research, and in this paper, worked on basic scientific analysis of development technology.Discussion with Reviewers1 Positioning of flexible-printable device processing technologyComment (Hiroshi Tateishi)If my understanding that the research objective of this paper is expressed by its title “development of flexible-printable device processing technology” is correct, I think the description of social value of this research objective is insufficient. Specifically, there is a gap between specification required for information terminal device - various uses, everywhere device, everyone device - and the concept of flexible-printable device. Flexible-printable device is one of the options that fulfill the above specification, and I don’t think it is everything. Unless you provide details (or specifications) about the condition in which flexible-printable device becomes best choice among several candidates, the argument will be flexible-printable device first. Demand for energy conservation during manufacture process is not sufficient as explanation. I think the explanation on why this device is necessary or effective for certain demand is lacking. This problem is apparent in Figure 1. There is a clear gap between the layer surrounded by “branching” and flexible-printable device. According to this figure, it seems that the flexible-printable device will solve all problems, but I don’t think things are so simple.Answer (Toshihide Kamata)Information terminal device technology has been called as ‘low-end target’, and many people hold impression that it is accessory technology that can be accomplished when high technologies are employed. Contrary to such perception, this technological field is not really pioneered, and placed in situation where there is almost no technology applicable to industry use. This is because there is no matchmaking between technological demand and market demand, and it shows that industrial technology cannot be developed from technological indicator alone. If I accept your point, I think we will fall back into this vicious cycle where things are built up from technological indicator. To break this cycle and to pioneer technological field, one good method is to present an example of symbolic technology that may solve this issue and pull the technology under its flag. In this paper, the concept “development of flexible-printable device processing technology,” which we perceive as the best technological indicator right now, is used symbolically to explain the technological strategy for pioneering this technological field. The social value of this strategy is to lead the expansion of information terminal device technology, which is stalled at this moment. Therefore, to discuss the details of other supplementary technologiesy will divert the main point under discussion, and I think describing them in this paper will bring about an adverse effect.Comment (Naoto Kobayashi)What are the main competing technologies in the R&D for “flexible-printable device processing technology”? For example, I think there are cases in which one uses not only organic devices but also heterogeneous materials and devices such as inorganic semiconductor and glass materials and other cases in which one uses different synthetic method and process with the same organic devices. I think it will be easier to understand if you show comparison of performances (benchmark) targeting for a certain purpose. You wouldn’t have to show all examples, but I think you should show some characteristic examples.Answer (Toshihide Kamata) I’ve added some remarks in the text. In technological development there is linear model where goal is set and research progresses according to plan, and nonlinear model where goal setting and planning are difficult although there is a final image, and here, I am engaging in discussion on how to conduct technological development by nonlinear model. Although people often think that the nonlinear model advances by flash insight, I am trying to show that it is possible to conduct logical and planned technological development by employing method where overall map is drawn (overall systematization) and some important points are extracted. Therefore, I believe the nonlinear method for creating research plan is, rather than starting from material science such as organic or inorganic materials, to consider materials systematically from physical property axis of flexibility, chemical property axis of solubility and so on. The optimal materials are then selected according to situation one after another. The important point is not to create a monoaxial technological development plan by setting benchmark for one technological indicator, but to plan by creating a map and discerning technological matches (several may be present), and to sharpen those areas. I want to express that this method is appropriate in this technological field. For this reason, I think the range of technological development will be narrowed if thing starts from technological seeds.Comment (Hiroshi Tateishi)I looked at Figure 1 again after reading your response, and perhaps this figure is the starting point of why I was mislead. Since there is picture of flexible-printable device technology beneath ‘the central-mainline system→ terminal-access system’, I perceived unconsciously that “flexible-printable device technology will replace current terminal device technology.” Perhaps although they exist at the same level in that they are “terminal devices,” we should understand rather “flexible-printable device technology is a development in different direction.” While current technology is, in general, characterized by the fact that they are “general-purpose technology that can do anything,” flexible-printable device technology should be understood as “technology of simplified function that specializes in particular demand of end user.” However, if necessary technology is different for each device, it will not be economically feasible, the manufacturing technology for flexible-printable device must be “general and has degree of freedom that allows accommodation of various demands” or else it will not help expansion of this technology. I think this will be the main point of the paper. If my understandings are correct, can you please add this point in the paper?Answer (Toshihide Kamata)Thank you very much for spelling out the main point of the paper. The above comment is indeed what I wish to emphasize. I made some additions to the introduction.2 Direction of technological developmentComment (Hiroshi Tateishi)I feel that the expression “phase” used in Tables 1 and 2 is strange. Normally, phase implies that it is developed one after another, but the phases here do not seem to evolve in order IV → III → II → I. Isn’t it closer to “level”?Answer (Toshihide Kamata)The “technological phase” described here develops in order I →II → III → IV, and I feel the word ‘phase’ is appropriate. Your indication “evolve in order IV → III → II → I” is incorrect understanding, and it is extremely important to understand to read this paper. It is not necessarily true that more complex technology will be developed as technology approaches the end user, such as information terminal device. That is because there will be no development as industrial technology unless there is match between the demands of user and manufacturer. For example, Phase I is technology where the intent of the manufacturer is easily reflected since it is strongly characterized as mass production of uniform standard. Because technology provider

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です