Vol.2 No.4 2010

15/68

Research paper : Development of a real-time all-in-focus microscope (K. Ohba)−245−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.2 No.4 (2010) AuthorKohtaro OhbaCompleted doctorate at the Graduate School, Tohoku University in 1991. Doctor (Engineering). Deputy director of Intelligent Systems Research Institute, AIST and group leader of Dependable System Research Group from 2009. Currently studying ubiquitous robot and dependable system in pursuit of robots that can be actually used in everyday living. Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Japan Society for Mechanical Engineers. Also teaches as Professor, Cooperative Graduate School, University of Tsukuba; Professor, Cooperative Graduate School, Shibaura Institute of Technology; and Visiting Associate Professor, Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, the University of Tokyo.Discussion with Reviewers1 Synthesis methodQuestion and comment (Naoto Kobayashi, Center for Research Strategy, Waseda University)In this paper, the author has conducted an information configuration based on the original idea of the “configuration of real-time all-in-focus image” in the first part, then has conducted a system configuration including the hardware to realize the “configuration of real-time all-in-focus image,” and ultimately has achieved a product realization of the real-time all-in-focus microscope by clearly improving the objectives sequentially. This is extremely important. Here, we see that the extremely unique R&D unseen elsewhere, despite its twists and turns, has been conducted and completed according to the following steps: 1) consistency from Type 1 Basic Research to product realization, 2) sequential deepening and clarification of the strategic goals, 3) improvement of the required system configuration, and 4) actual product realization and maintenance as a commercial product thereafter. I thought these were appropriate as a Synthesiology paper.On the other hand, in Synthesiology, the originality of the synthesis method is one of the key issues. For this paper, I guess that the strategy became clearer as the technology or the synthesis progressed, and the scenario became more apparent as it proceeded. I understand that there was no clear strategic objective such as “development and product realization of real-time all-in-focus microscope” in the beginning, but it fell into a cycle where the strategic goal deepened as the elemental technologies were synthesized, the issues to be solved in the next step became clear, and the next strategic goal deepened after the selection of elemental technologies and realization of the system. The elemental technologies were selected each time when you progressed to the next step, and the strategy became clarified and evolved during the progression. As a result, I assume that the methods of so-called “strategic deepening and selective synthesis” of elemental technologies were taken (see Figure a; modification of figure in Synthesiology 1(2) p.141). Is this view correct?Answer (Kohtaro Ohba) I think the method taken in the process of product realization could be called “strategic deepening” and “selective synthesis.” However, those were dependent on personal experiences and human contacts, and I feel it is extremely difficult to spell things out logically in a clean-cut manner to share it with others. I nevertheless have added that the feasibility study phase was greatly affected by the “strategic deepening and selective synthesis”, including selections and rejections of some components, development of algorithms dedicated to those components, and meeting with partners to realize them, as well as the “lucky coincidences”. That is because as we blindly wandered in the dark and finally arrived at the goal, only in retrospect can we say certain places were the forks in the road. While I was groping desperately, honestly speaking, I cannot say I did any strategic decision-making even in retrospect. These points are discussed in “Chapter 2: History of twists and turns.”2 “Valley of death”Comment (Hideyuki Nakashima, Future University Hakodate)There are the expression “valley of death” in several places. I think valley of death refers to the situation in which although there is technological prospect, other conditions (particularly cost) cannot be fulfilled toward product realization. It is a gap in research and development, where people do not want to get involved because it is not interesting as basic research since the principle is known, or because the development cost is too large for a company.Answer (Kohtaro Ohba)I think there is some difference in perception of the term “valley of death” as I understand it. The reviewer writes, “I think valley of death refers to the situation in which although there is some technological prospect, other conditions (particularly cost) cannot be fulfilled toward product realization,” but I don’t think it is the valley of death if one sees some technological prospect. Here, I use valley of death as a “place where one wanders in, looses the sense of direction of the goal much like the Forest of Aokigahara, and must make numerous twists and turns before arriving at the exit.” Comment (Hideyuki Nakashima)I think the part where the prospect of research cannot be seen (scene where a breakthrough is necessary) can be called the “wall,” “obstacle,” or “bottleneck.” I think you should refer to the “valley of death” in Wikipedia (Japanese version).3 Synthetic explanationComment (Hideyuki Nakashima)When we write an ordinary research paper, it is a presentation of a pathway taken in afterthought as we look back from the point the research is completed. We write as if the way to the conclusion was a straight path where we made all the choices without any doubt. The choices that were not selected or the accumulation of failures are not described in the paper. In that sense, the first manuscript was written like an ordinary paper.Ordinary logical and analytical papers can have such structures. That is because the phenomena that must be understood are already in existence, and the purpose of a thesis is to present the pathway to the understanding. However, Synthesiology is for the discipline of synthesis. There may be more than one answer. The selection of certain paths amongst several possibilities itself is an important factor in synthesiology, and the descriptions of the selections are necessary. I think the content explained in the beginning of “Chapter 2: History of twists and turns” is important.Sequential deepening of strategic goalsStrategic deepening, selective synthesisIntegration technologyTechnological element ATechnological element BTechnological element CFig. a Structure of synthesis.

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です