Vol.4 No.1 2011

61/78

Round-table talk : “Monozukuri” (manufacturing) of Japan and synthesiology−58−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.4 No.1 (2011) “modular type architecture” where the world’s leading state-of-the-art sciences and technologies are collected and connected through open innovation. And the other is the “integral type architecture” where socioeconomic values are generated by complex combination of the individual state-of-the-art science and technologies. Considering the process of creating the value including the time and collaboration of people-people and people-organization, I don’t think we can simply call it the “age of open innovation”.The concept of “techno-genome” that denotes the genetic quality of technology is the terminology of Dr. Takemochi Ishii. When we were discussing the new opportunities for Japanese manufacturing as the developing countries are beginning to catch up, Dr. Ishii said, “There are technologies that can be transferred in a short time if you have money and guts, and there are those that require a long time to be transferred”.In organisms, it takes tens of thousands of years for the genome to change to adapt to the change in the environment. The time frame for technology is 10 or 20 years, but it tends to evolve like the genome over time. The Japanese manufacturing or monozukuri does not have to be so pessimistic as long as innovations in science and technology occur to maintain the 10 to 20 year lead, and by continuously making them part of the social values. This is the root of techno-genome.On the generalized methodology for technological development to overcome the valley of deathYabeI think it is important to take advantage of the characteristic of Japanese manufacturing for the technological development to overcome the valley of death. How do you think about the methodologies? I think this is one of the characteristics of synthesis. How do you think about the characteristics of synthesis?TsugeTo overcome the valley of death in innovation process, I think the reconstruction of the innovation traction engine is one of the key solutions.In the United States, the corporate central laboratories that functioned as the innovation traction engines collapsed over 10 years ago. The current traction engines are the combination of universities, venture companies surrounding the universities, and the venture capital that supports them. Education, R&D, and innovation work as three-in-one to germinate the seed. Then, when the early stage is completed, the major companies step in to invest and the innovation is kicked off. This engine structure is firmly established in the United States.In Japan, the corporate central research centers have collapsed as well. The national research institutes, such as the labs of the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) Corporation, were privatized, and the age of central labs ended. Although the R&D entities, some corporate labs, and universities are working hard, the abilities of knowledge creation and combination by these three kinds of research organizations are weak, and the collaboration between the higher education and R&D is fragile. Therefore, I think the general methodology for overcoming the valley of death in Japan is to strengthen the innovation pipeline network. The innovation process is nonlinear and probabilistic to the degree that one can say that “if he wasn’t around or if this organization didn’t do that, the innovation might have not occurred”. Therefore, as a general method, it is necessary to strengthen the three-in-one collaboration of universities, R&D entities, and industry, and to build the three-in-one structure of the higher education, R&D, and innovation. It is important for the participants to be “under one roof” for education, R&D, and innovation. I think the Japanese-style innovation traction engine must be rebuilt from this perspective.YabeAre you saying that there is insufficient interface function among the universities, companies, and the R&D entities, and to have this function under one roof is a requirement?TsugeYes. For example, there should be an emphasis on the flow or interface of values from universities to the R&D entities, or from the R&D entities to industry. To put it bluntly, it may not produce an academic paper, but it is vital to contribute to the socioeconomic value creation. To get the academia appreciate the fact that such activities are academically valuable; I think that is the mission of synthesiology. The students and researchers are not passionate about such things because they won’t be recognized for doing them.In industry, this accomplishment is recognized in the personnel evaluation. This individual combined the demand and potential of Business A and Laboratory B, and created the driving force for generating the new Product X. That is what the companies evaluate highly. Unless the academia recognizes this value on the academic table, I don’t think the gap between industry and the academia will close.NariaiI still remember what a person from industry said a long time ago. He said “Say, that basic research need 1 effort and money, then, 10 times more effort and money are needed to make the actual product, and another 10 times more is needed to create a product that can sell”. I felt that it was very difficult to create a selling product. The obstacles we faced on creating a product is, what we call, “the valley of death”.

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です