Vol.3 No.1 2010

70/110

Research paper : A field-scientific approach to Clinico-Informatics (Y. Kinoshita et al.)−67−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.3 No.1 (2010) not necessarily outdoors, but may well be on desktops in your bibliography or, in the case of informatics, in the office of software development. The relationship between these three kinds of study is depicted in the W-model for problem solving shown in Fig. 1[2]. The technology transfer is a way of problem solving, so we set up our hypothesis that the process of technology transfer can be understood using the Kawakita’s W-model for problem solving. With this approach, we try to give a systematic account of technology transfer, occasionally referring to our own experiences.We apply the Kawakita’s W-model for problem-solving to technology transfer as follows. First, under a vague expectation or problem proposal that some technology may be useful somewhere in some society, one visits (make exploration) there and observes the situation (field observation)Note 5). As a result of the observation, one determines the way the technology which initially seemed useful can in fact be made useful (abduction). Other technology may turn out to be necessary in this phase (integration). Then one goes back to the laboratory, the overall situation is overviewed (understanding the situation), and it is decided whether the initial plan is to be performed or not. In the former case, the specific procedure of technology transfer is designed in detail (reasoning), and the experiment that allows the procedure to go forward is prepared and performed. The result of experiment is observed, verified and evaluated.If the technology transfer is conducted without such a systematic view as above, at least three problems arise, according to our experience.1. If some technology is transferred without sufficient understanding of the overall situation due to insufficient social observation (field observation), we may just hard-sell a technology not suitable in the situation.2. Technology transfer is a difficult and large scale process that takes at least several months, or even several years in some cases. A comprehensive understanding of the whole technology transfer process would help the stakeholders much because they can then understand where they stand in the whole process. Such an understanding would especially help the involved engineers and scientists, when they face with difficulty in the process. Also, such a picture will make it easier to provide explanations to other stakeholders (especially the project sponsors).3. Although the concrete technology transfer process itself is unique between a research institute and its industrial partner, there are cases where several similar cases are discussed all together. Such a comprehensive discussion would only be possible under the existence of a general theory of technology transfer.In particular, the target of technology transfer of concern in this paper is for a methodology of software development in general, not a method or know-how of developing specific software, such as an algorithm or even a parameter of some algorithm. In the former case, systematic training of engineers (knowledge transfer) would be inevitable, while a need for such training is not so obvious in the latter case. It seems that the difficulty arising with knowledge transfer has an aspect of a complex system issue, and it is where Kawakita’s W-model for problem-solving could come in.3.2 Full Research and W-modelType 2 Basic Research[7] was first proposed by Hiroyuki Yoshikawa as a process of conveyance of knowledge (results of study) from abstract to concrete. It is a part of the life cycle of research called Full Research[8][9], which consists of the three processes: Type 1 Basic Research, Type 2 Basic Research, and Product Realization Research. As both Yoshikawa’s Full Research and Kawakita’s W-model are frameworks of problem solving, the following comparison could be made.Since Kawakita’s model is intended for problem solving in general, it can be applied comprehensively at various levels; Kawakita himself in fact proposed that the W-model process should be repeated six times for large-scale problems. In particular, we can apply Kawakita’s model to the overall life cycle of Full Research, as well as to the individual processes of Type 1 Basic Research, Type 2 Basic Research, and Product Realization Research.In both Full Research and the Kawakita model, abduction plays an important role, no less than deduction and induction. The Kawakita model has the processes of experiment for induction and exploration for abduction; the Yoshikawa model, on the other hand, has a process called synthesis, which seems to correspond to a mixture of experiment and exploration in Kawakita’s terms.The levels of thought which are called concrete and abstract in the Yoshikawa model corresponds to the experience and thinking level in the Kawakita model. So, the slogan “from abstract to concrete” of Type 2 Basic Research corresponds to the transition from the thinking level to the experience level in the Kawakita model. As shown in Fig. 1, there are two types of transitions, exploration and experiment preparation. If we apply the W-model to the whole life cycle of Full Research, Type 2 Basic Research corresponds to the V-shape on the left half Note 6) of the W-shape. The other V-shape to the right where reasoning, experiment, and verification are done would be understood as Type 1 Basic Research. Our explanation here may sound as though Type 1 Basic Research is always done after Type 2 Basic Research, but the order is not a major issue here, since the whole research activities are cyclic where the results of the Type 1

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です